U.S. Cuts Ties with International Organizations, Reviews Global Presence
The U.S. government’s recent decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations has stirred discussions among experts about the future of these entities. This move follows an executive order from President Donald Trump in February 2025, aiming to evaluate U.S. support for global organizations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that this action signals a rejection of an old model of multilateralism that relies heavily on American taxpayers’ contributions to global governance. He added that the review process is ongoing, indicating that these cuts may not be the last.
Rubio emphasized that the U.S. isn’t stepping away from its global responsibilities. Instead, the aim is to reassess an international system cluttered with many organizations that often duplicate efforts and suffer from poor governance and accountability.
Experts have weighed in on the implications of this withdrawal. Hugh Dugan, a former senior director at the National Security Council, criticized U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, claiming he misunderstood the previous executive order as merely a budget-cutting measure. Dugan pointed out that significant reductions often fail to focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of U.N. operations.
Launched in March 2025, the UN80 initiative was intended to identify and eliminate inefficiencies within the U.N. However, Guterres expressed disappointment over the U.S. withdrawal, stating that all member states, including the U.S., have a legal obligation to contribute to the U.N. budgets.
Brett Schaefer from the American Enterprise Institute highlighted that many of the affected organizations do not warrant U.S. funding. He noted that the withdrawal can be viewed as a chance to urge the U.N. to consolidate efforts and remove redundancies.
Future cuts could target additional organizations, according to Schaefer, who mentioned several potential candidates, including the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
While some smaller nations rely on the U.N. for aid distribution, Schaefer believes the U.S. doesn’t need such intermediaries and can support humanitarian efforts directly. Concerns over corruption within organizations like the U.N. were also raised, emphasizing that issues exist regarding funding and oversight.
In response, representatives from the affected organizations acknowledged the U.S. as a valuable partner but stressed their commitment to transparency and accountability.
This ongoing review of international commitments reflects a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and raises questions about the future of global collaboration.
