Under former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party has walked a long distance away from traditional foreign policy. He has similarly directed the United States to withdraw from a slew of other international organizations, calling them “wasteful, ineffective or harmful.” This landmark ruling affects 66 direct service providers. Second, it places the US in league with just three other countries—Iran, Libya, and Yemen—that are barred from these global forums.
The news was released only hours after Trump’s inauguration for his second term in January 2025. So much so that during his first term, in 2016, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. His recent moves suggest he’s doubling down on the strategy that’s guided his administration’s international relations from the start. Trump has consistently claimed to prioritise American interests over global commitments, arguing that many of these organisations do not align with US values or objectives.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and his original homeland security adviser. He has played a central role in perpetuating this worldview. His influence had been felt across the Administration’s policy moves, including – until his recent withdrawal – on the decision to withdraw. Miller’s take, according to the Washington Post, reflects a key premise of the administration — that the US should project its power all over the world.
Impacts on Global Governance
The most recent withdrawal order ends US engagement and funding for organizations like . These entities are key to ensuring compliance with international law and protection of vulnerable populations, most notably women and children, from violence. About 50% of the entities in our 2020 list focus on humanitarian-related challenges. The other three groups focus on international security issues, such as counterterrorism and cybercrime.
Dr. Emma Shortis, director of the International & Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, expressed strong disappointment over the decision. She believes it could be transformative. She stated that it specifically targets “the poorest and most vulnerable places and organisations.”
“There’s a particular targeting of the poorest and most vulnerable places and organisations.” – Dr. Emma Shortis
Shortis added ominously that this move was indicative of a broader disinterest in promoting authentic peace. She remarked, “This is showing that the United States under Trump has no interest in building [any] genuine peace, that military might and strength is all they’re interested in.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed up with the broader implications of this withdrawal. He blasted the civil society organizations on Trump’s list, claiming that they advance agendas that undermine U.S. interests in a manner that is “diabolical.” Rubio claimed these organisations are “often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests,” a sentiment that echoes the administration’s broader narrative.
A Shift in Foreign Policy
Trump’s administration has often communicated its foreign policy in the context of something called a strength/power doctrine. In his remarks, he has often stated, “We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” He emphasized the notion that these principles have been “the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
What’s largely gone unrecognized is under Trump, the US has planted its flag as a superpower, particularly in the economic space. He declared, “We’re a superpower. Under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.” This position represents a radical break from diplomacy as usual, where our foreign policy has long leaned on working together in international norms and institutions.
Rubio further elaborated on the shift in approach by stating, “What started as a pragmatic framework of international organisations for peace and cooperation has morphed into a sprawling architecture of global governance.” This nationalistic view illuminates an important and troubling theme of prioritizing national interests over the need for international cooperation.
Reactions and Future Outlook
The move to pull out from these international bodies has received mostly negative responses from political experts and international observers. Detractors contend that Trump’s approach jeopardizes years of diplomatic progress, intended to build cooperation and a willingness to address global challenges together.
Our analysts have estimated that this action will bring greater international isolation onto the United States. Moreover, it risks encouraging our adversarial states who might read such a withdrawal as a sign of reduced American authority.
