US exits UN bodies and expands withdrawal from international organizations
Washington’s retreat from multilateral engagement under Trump marks a major shift in global cooperation
WASHINGTON (MNTV) — The United States has begun a sweeping withdrawal from several United Nations bodies and dozens of international organizations, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape American engagement with multilateral institutions it says no longer align with U.S. interests or priorities.
On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation directing the withdrawal of the United States from 35 non‑United Nations organizations and 31 agencies or entities affiliated with the United Nations, according to a White House statement.
The administration said the organizations targeted in the directive promote “radical climate policies,” “global governance,” or other agendas that it believes conflict with U.S. sovereignty, economic priorities, and national security.
The latest step follows an extensive review by the administration of U.S. participation in international bodies, treaties, conventions and funding commitments.
The White House argues that many of these organizations have been inefficient or have failed to produce measurable benefits for American taxpayers. Agencies affected by the withdrawal have not been fully disclosed, and federal departments have been instructed to begin winding down funding and participation consistent with the proclamation.
Withdrawal from key U.N. Agencies
Among the better documented exits is the United States’ retreat from the World Health Organization (WHO). In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, saying the global health body mishandled the COVID‑19 pandemic and had been unduly influenced by political interests, including those of other member states.
The formal withdrawal process requires a waiting period before it takes effect, but the administration suspended U.S. financial contributions and support in line with the order. The U.S. has also announced its intention to withdraw once again from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The withdrawal, first executed under Trump’s earlier presidency and reversed by his successor, was reinstated in 2025 and is set to take effect at the end of 2026. Washington has criticized UNESCO’s focus and policies as incompatible with U.S. priorities.
Earlier moves under Trump’s second term included ending U.S. engagement with the U.N. Human Rights Council and cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The February 2025 White House order reviewed U.S. involvement in these bodies and forbade further contributions, citing concerns that the council’s operations and UNRWA’s activities conflicted with U.S. foreign policy goals.
The United States also withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and related climate commitments under a separate executive order in 2025. While not a U.N. body itself, the agreement was adopted under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the withdrawal signaled a broader rollback of U.S. engagement with multilateral environmental frameworks.
Reactions from the global community
The administration’s retreat from international institutions has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue that U.S. exits weaken global cooperation and diminish America’s influence on international norms, particularly in areas such as public health, human rights, culture and climate action.
Public health experts, for example, warned that exiting the WHO could undermine U.S. readiness for future pandemics and weaken global disease control systems.
UNESCO officials expressed regret over the U.S. decision to withdraw, saying it contradicts the principles of multilateralism and could affect collaborations in education, science, and cultural heritage initiatives globally. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay noted that the organization has diversified funding sources but acknowledged the impact of losing support from a major member country.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that past U.S. commitments to international organizations have sometimes failed to deliver clear benefits relative to costs, and that prioritizing bilateral arrangements and direct investment in national interests strengthens American sovereignty.
Proponents say this strategy allows the U.S. to leverage its resources more effectively in areas such as infrastructure, defense, and economic growth.
Implications for future global engagement
The U.S. retreat from multilateral participation marks one of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy in recent decades.
While the United States remains involved in selected international initiatives, critics warn that reduced engagement could leave strategic space for rival powers to shape global governance and standards across health, culture, human rights and climate policy.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
