The United States has once again signalled a sharp shift in its approach to global engagement, with President Donald Trump signing a presidential memorandum directing the country to withdraw from dozens of international organisations. The move reinforces the administration’s long-standing America First doctrine, prioritising domestic interests over multilateral commitments.
The decision, announced by the White House, has sparked widespread debate across diplomatic, economic and environmental circles. With the order covering both United Nations-linked entities and independent global bodies, the announcement marks one of the most extensive withdrawals from international frameworks in recent US history.
Supporters argue the move protects American sovereignty and taxpayer money, while critics warn it could weaken global cooperation on climate, security and development. As details emerge, the implications of the decision are being closely examined worldwide.
Trump Orders US Exit From 66 International Organisations
According to the White House, President Trump has signed a memorandum instructing all government agencies to stop funding and engaging with 66 international organisations deemed to be operating against US national interests. The list includes 35 non-UN bodies and 31 entities associated with the United Nations system.
The administration stated that the decision followed a comprehensive review of international commitments and financial contributions. Officials argued that many of these organisations no longer align with US strategic priorities or deliver measurable benefits in return for American taxpayer funding.
The announcement was framed as a necessary correction to decades of what the administration describes as excessive global entanglement, with resources now expected to be redirected toward domestic priorities.
America First Policy Shapes Foreign Engagement
The withdrawal order is deeply rooted in President Trump’s America First philosophy, which emphasises national sovereignty, economic self-reliance and reduced dependence on international institutions. The White House reiterated that US participation in global bodies must directly benefit American citizens.
Officials stressed that the memorandum does not represent isolationism, but rather a recalibration of foreign engagement. The administration believes bilateral agreements and selective partnerships are more effective than broad multilateral commitments.
This approach reflects a broader trend within the administration to reassess treaties, alliances and organisations that, in its view, dilute US decision-making authority.
Impact On UN And Non-UN Bodies
Among the affected organisations are several high-profile UN-linked entities as well as independent international groups. The White House confirmed that all executive departments and agencies have been ordered to immediately cease participation and funding.
The administration claims that some of these bodies promote policies that conflict with US economic growth, national security or constitutional values. Others were described as inefficient, duplicative or lacking accountability.
The withdrawal applies not only to financial contributions but also to US representation, collaboration and programmatic involvement.
International Solar Alliance And Climate Groups Affected
One of the most notable organisations impacted by the decision is the International Solar Alliance, a clean energy initiative led by India and France. The alliance focuses on promoting solar energy adoption across developing and tropical countries.
In addition, several global environmental and climate-focused organisations are included in the list. The administration has been critical of what it describes as radical climate policies that could restrict economic activity or impose regulatory burdens on American industries.
The move underscores the administration’s scepticism toward international climate governance and its preference for domestic energy strategies.
White House Rationale Behind The Decision
In an official statement, the White House said the withdrawals would end American funding for organisations that advance global agendas over US priorities. It argued that taxpayer money should not support initiatives that fail to produce tangible benefits for the country.
The statement added that many of the organisations operate inefficiently, with limited oversight and unclear outcomes. By exiting these bodies, the administration believes funds can be better allocated toward national security, infrastructure and economic development.
The White House also highlighted concerns over ideological programs that it says conflict with US sovereignty and democratic principles.
Domestic Reactions To The Withdrawal Order
Within the United States, reactions to the decision have been sharply divided. Supporters praise the move as a bold step toward reclaiming control over foreign policy and reducing unnecessary spending abroad.
Critics, however, warn that withdrawing from global institutions could reduce US influence on the world stage. They argue that absence from international forums may allow rival powers to shape global rules and norms.
Lawmakers, policy experts and advocacy groups are expected to continue debating the long-term consequences of the decision.
Global Response And Diplomatic Implications
Internationally, the announcement has triggered concern among allies and partner nations. Many see US participation as critical to the effectiveness and legitimacy of global organisations.
Diplomats fear that the withdrawals could strain relationships, particularly with countries that co-lead or heavily rely on the affected institutions. Questions have also been raised about how ongoing projects and commitments will be managed.
The decision adds to growing uncertainty around multilateral cooperation at a time when global challenges increasingly require coordinated responses.
Focus On Sovereignty And Economic Priorities
The administration maintains that exiting these organisations strengthens US sovereignty and economic resilience. Officials argue that global institutions often impose obligations without sufficient regard for national interests.
By pulling out, the White House believes the US can negotiate from a position of strength, choosing partnerships that align closely with its goals rather than adhering to broad frameworks.
This perspective continues to shape the administration’s approach to trade, climate policy and international diplomacy.
What Comes Next After The Withdrawals
With the memorandum now in effect, federal agencies are expected to implement the withdrawals over the coming months. This includes ending funding streams, closing offices and disengaging from collaborative programs.
Observers note that while exiting organisations is relatively straightforward, rebuilding trust or rejoining in the future could be more complex. The long-term impact will depend on how the US manages relationships outside these frameworks.
As the global community responds, the decision marks a defining moment in the evolution of US foreign policy under the America First agenda.
Also Read: Delhi Freezes as Temperature Drops to 5.8°C Third Lowest
