66 International Organizations the US Exited Under Trump! – Story Of The Day!

Among the most high-profile targets of this policy are agencies within the United Nations framework. UN Women, an organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women globally, is set to lose U.S. participation and funding. For decades, the United States served as a primary financier for its development aid and advocacy programs. Similarly, the United States is severing ties with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The relationship with UNFPA has long been a flashpoint in American politics due to debates over reproductive health and family planning. The administration has cited deep-seated ideological differences as a primary reason for this specific departure, arguing that American resources should not support programs that conflict with the administration’s moral and policy frameworks.

The reach of this policy extends far beyond humanitarian and social agencies. The 35 non-UN organizations targeted for withdrawal cover a vast spectrum of global activity, including international trade, energy policy, arms monitoring, peacebuilding efforts, and development finance. By exiting these groups, the United States is essentially resigning its seat at various tables where global standards and regulations are debated. The administration maintains that these organizations often impose “soft law” or regulatory burdens that hinder American competitiveness. The goal is to replace these multilateral constraints with a flexible, bilateral approach to foreign relations, where the United States can negotiate one-on-one with other nations to secure more favorable terms.

However, the implementation of such a massive withdrawal faces significant legal and logistical hurdles. The White House memo acknowledges that these exits will occur “to the extent permitted by law,” recognizing that the Executive Branch does not have unlimited power to unilaterally dissolve all international commitments. Many U.S. memberships are the result of treaties ratified by the Senate or are maintained through specific funding allocations mandated by Congress. While the President has broad authority over foreign affairs, legal scholars and lawmakers are expected to scrutinize the process to ensure it adheres to constitutional boundaries. Despite these potential legal challenges, the administration remains firm in its intent to exercise executive authority to the fullest extent possible to protect what it deems the “national interest.”

This current wave of withdrawals is a massive expansion of the “sovereignty-first” philosophy seen during Trump’s previous term. It builds upon the earlier exits from the Paris Climate Agreement and the initial steps taken to leave the World Health Organization (WHO). In those instances, the administration argued that the costs of participation were disproportionately high and that the institutions themselves were plagued by systemic bias. By applying this logic to over 60 additional organizations, the administration is effectively attempting to dismantle the infrastructure of globalism as it has existed for nearly a century.