Why did Trump order the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations?

Trump orders the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN agencies and 35 non-UN organizations. The White House states that these organizations promote “radical climate policies and global governance ideas” that are against American interests. The organizations being withdrawn include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Due to the US refusal to pay its dues, the UN faces a financial crisis, having already cut its budget by 7% and laid off 2,900 staff members.

Three Major Categories of the 66 Organizations

In the presidential memorandum, Trump instructed US agencies to cease participation and stop funding these entities. The White House did not specify the exact list of these organizations but stated that they promote “radical climate policies, global governance ideas, and ideological agendas that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength.” According to the White House fact sheet, the 66 organizations are divided into three categories.

The first category is core UN agencies, totaling 31. These include organizations involved in climate, human rights, and development aid. Notable withdrawals include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The treaty aims to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and requires member states to submit annual inventories of pollutants that cause global warming. The framework also underpins the Paris Agreement, from which Trump previously ordered the US to withdraw; the withdrawal is expected to take effect later this month.

The second category is non-UN multilateral organizations, totaling 35. These include regional cooperation mechanisms, technical alliances, and various international coordination bodies. The White House statement said: “Withdrawing from these organizations will end US taxpayer funding and participation in entities that prioritize globalist agendas over American interests or handle critical issues inefficiently or ineffectively, because US taxpayers’ money is better spent elsewhere to support relevant missions.”

The third category includes organizations that the Trump administration considers to have ideological bias. Secretary of State Rubio stated in a Wednesday press release: “We can no longer accept sending the blood, sweat, and wealth of the American people to these organizations with little to no return. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds flowing abroad at the expense of our people’s interests are over.” Rubio claimed that these organizations are attempting to undermine US sovereignty.

UN Financial Collapse Crisis

The fact sheet did not specify how much funding is involved in this withdrawal, but the decision comes about a week after the UN approved a 7% budget cut. The UN is facing a financial crisis largely due to the US refusal to pay its dues. The cut includes layoffs of 2,900 staff, one of the measures taken as the UN tries to cut costs as much as possible. Last year, the UN also announced that its toilets at the New York headquarters would no longer provide paper towels.

The US is the largest contributor to the UN, accounting for about 22% of the regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping budgets. If the US completely stops paying, the UN’s financial gap could reach billions of dollars. More seriously, this could trigger a chain reaction, with other countries possibly using the US withdrawal as an excuse to reduce or delay their payments, further worsening the UN’s financial situation.

The UN has already begun preparing for the worst-case scenario. Cutting 2,900 jobs means about 10% of staff could lose their jobs, severely impacting the UN’s operational capacity. The seemingly absurd measure of stopping the provision of toilet paper highlights how dire the UN’s financial situation has become. When a global organization has to cut back on basic office supplies, its ability to carry out major missions is naturally in question.

Three Major Types of Organizations the US Is Withdrawing From

Core UN agencies (31): Climate-related (IPCC, UNFCCC), Human Rights Council, UNESCO, etc.

Non-UN multilateral organizations (35): Regional cooperation mechanisms, technical alliances, international coordination bodies.

Organizations with ideological bias: Entities promoting globalist agendas or perceived to undermine US sovereignty.

A UN spokesperson said that the organization would not comment until more details are available. This cautious attitude indicates that the UN is aware of the seriousness of Trump’s decision but is reluctant to publicly oppose it before the details are clear, to avoid further deterioration of relations with the US.

Reorganization of Global Order and Opportunities in Safe-Haven Assets

Since beginning his second term a year ago, Trump has sought to cut US funding to the UN, cease US participation in the UN Human Rights Council, extend the suspension of aid to the Palestinian Relief and Works Agency, and withdraw from UNESCO. He also announced plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement. This withdrawal of 66 organizations is the culmination of these actions.

Trump and his allies have long been opposed to the UN, other international organizations, and various international treaties. This attitude stems from the core principle of “America First”: the US should not bear disproportionate financial burdens for international organizations, should not be bound by international rules, and should not cede sovereignty to global governance bodies. This isolationist policy contrasts sharply with the international order established under US leadership after World War II.

Environmental advocates warn that Trump’s withdrawal will exclude the US from key decisions on how to address global warming. Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “Letting other countries set the ‘rules of the game’ for the inevitable transition to clean energy is not only self-defeating; it also means abandoning trillions of dollars in investments, jobs, lower energy costs, and opportunities for US clean tech to enter new markets.”

From a geopolitical perspective, the US’s large-scale withdrawal creates opportunities for other major powers to fill the power vacuum. After the US withdraws from these organizations, China, the EU, and others may increase their investments to boost influence. This reorganization of the global order will trigger long-term geopolitical uncertainties. For the cryptocurrency market, this kind of uncertainty often enhances the appeal of safe-haven assets. Bitcoin, as a decentralized asset not controlled by any single government, could benefit from the trust crisis triggered by the US’s withdrawal from international organizations.