The United States’ withdrawal from multiple international bodies signals not isolation but a strategic recalibration of multilateralism, deepening fragmentation while creating space for institutional adaptation in a multi-aligned world
As part of a broader reassessment of multilateral engagement, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in early January suspending United States (US) participation in and funding for 66 international organisations, conventions, and agencies. The withdrawal followed an ongoing review led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, mandated by a previous executive order, that characterised several international organisations as “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful”. The move followed the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela—signalling a disregard for international law—as well as the imposition of unilateral tariffs on multiple trading partners. While the large number of international agencies the United States withdrew from delivered a largely ‘symbolic’ jolt to the multilateral system, the decision was not entirely unexpected, as it reflects Washington’s current approach to multilateral engagement. Even as the US sought to consolidate an alternative global initiative through the “Board of Peace”, it has not yet severed ties with major multilateral institutions. Nevertheless, these steps have further deepened fragmentation within the existing multilateral order.
While the large number of international agencies the United States withdrew from delivered a largely ‘symbolic’ jolt to the multilateral system, the decision was not entirely unexpected, as it reflects Washington’s current approach to multilateral engagement.
As the United States announced its decision to cut funding and withdraw from nearly 66 international entities, the move was seen as a sudden blow to an already shrinking space for international cooperation. However, such a decision to cease participation was not entirely unexpected, given the precedent set by the Trump administration in its first term. Consistent with the “America First” agenda that underpinned his domestic political commitments, during his first term (2017–2021), Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The previous administration under President Joe Biden rejoined several UN bodies, such as the Paris Agreement and UNHRC, and further strengthened plurilateral initiatives such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). With Trump now back in office, however, Washington has again begun disengaging from several multilateral organisations.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that while the US may have withdrawn from a large number of international organisations, most of them relate to climate, trade, or human rights—reflecting the state’s broader scepticism towards these issue areas. Major UN bodies and mechanisms from which the US announced its withdrawal include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), regional bodies under the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the International Law Commission, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), along with other groups dealing with renewable energy, oceans, piracy, and women’s empowerment. While the executive review remains ongoing, the US has not withdrawn from the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, or other core international institutions.
Table 1: UN Bodies and Related Agencies the United States Has Withdrawn From
| UN and Related Agencies the US Has Withdrawn From |
|
Department of Economic and Social Affairs UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – Economic Commission for Africa ECOSOC – Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean ECOSOC – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ECOSOC – Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia International Law Commission International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals International Trade Centre Office of the Special Adviser on Africa Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children Peacebuilding Commission Peacebuilding Fund Permanent Forum on People of African Descent UN Alliance of Civilizations UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries UN Conference on Trade and Development UN Democracy Fund UN Energy UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women UN Human Settlements Programme UN Institute for Training and Research UN Oceans UN Population Fund UN Register of Conventional Arms UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination UN System Staff College UN Water UN University UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) |
Source: Al Jazeera
In its latest executive order of 4 February 2026, the Trump administration further halted funding to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as well as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). As the US falls behind on its financial dues—it made no payments to the regular UN budget last year and owes nearly US$ 2 billion—UN officials fear that the rapid pullback could be a precursor to a broader withdrawal from the UN system itself. Despite this pressure on UN institutions and funding, in his address at the Munich Security Conference on 14 February 2026, Marco Rubio noted that the US did not need to “abandon the system of international cooperation” or “dismantle the global institutions of the old order,” adding that these institutions “must be reformed” and “rebuilt,” and that the UN still had “tremendous potential to be a tool for good.”
While the United States may have stepped back from several UN bodies, it is not retreating from international engagement altogether; rather, it appears to be seeking to redefine the terms of its multilateral participation.
While the United States may have stepped back from several UN bodies, it is not retreating from international engagement altogether; rather, it appears to be seeking to redefine the terms of its multilateral participation. The proposed expansion of the mandate of the “Board of Peace” beyond Gaza—described by Donald Trump as potentially becoming the “most consequential bodies ever created in the history of the world”—illustrates this effort to engage with other countries, but on newly defined terms. Even a protectionist administration must contend with the realities of complex interdependence in a globalised order. While the United States may be withdrawing from some existing multilateral initiatives as a policy tactic, it is also exploring alternative approaches, including strengthening bilateral and trilateral partnerships.
Multilateralism stands at a critical juncture as the United States—a principal architect of the post-war international order—appears to be stepping back from parts of the system while remaining a dominant economic and military power. It is unlikely that Washington will relinquish its membership in the United Nations, but it may withdraw from additional multilateral agencies and agreements. Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN, recently indicated that Washington may clear its outstanding dues to the organisation in the coming weeks.
The increasingly sceptical approach of the United States (US) towards multilateralism, even as multipolar competition intensifies, creates a degree of uncertainty and potential gaps for smaller and middle powers. While achieving progress on global cooperation may prove difficult without Washington’s participation, prioritising existing consensus-based multilateral forums would remain a strategically sound approach, particularly for developing countries.
The increasingly sceptical approach of the United States (US) towards multilateralism, even as multipolar competition intensifies, creates a degree of uncertainty and potential gaps for smaller and middle powers.
First, despite its ambitious objectives, a nascent US-centred initiative such as the “Board of Peace” lacks a clearly defined mandate beyond the Gaza Strip, representative leadership, and institutional legitimacy, making it an unstable platform for most countries. The limitations of the board were out in the open with the recent US-Israel attack on Iran and escalating conflict in the Middle East, effectively stalling any progress the board might have sought to achieve. Second, as seen after the end of President Donald Trump’s first term, multilateral institutions endured despite the challenges posed by US retrenchment, with the subsequent administration eventually re-engaging with several of them.
In this sense, the current US pullback may also create space for existing international institutions to adapt and reform in ways that better reflect the realities of an increasingly multialigned world. In the meantime, as multilateral institutions navigate this period of adjustment, countries can continue engaging through other forums—including the European Union (EU), BRICS, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—using them as platforms for dialogue and consensus-building.
While a hegemonic power has historically contributed to stability in the international system, multilateral groupings have also demonstrated resilience, sustained by the shared interests and values of their member states—even during periods when the leading power retreats.
Heena Makhija is an Associate Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Makhija is an Associate Fellow at ORF and specializes in the study of Multilateralism, International Organizations, Global Norms, India at UN, Multilateral Negotiations, and ...
Read More +
PREV
