The Trump administration's recent move to withdraw from 66 international organisations sounded like a bold “America First” foreign policy move, but will actually have little impact on US funds flowing to multilateral groups.
President Donald Trump last week announced an exit from 31 United Nations entities and 35 other entities, but what the US spends on these groups is less than 3% of what it contributed to international organisations in 2023, according to a review by Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
“They're not the big-ticket items,” Schaefer said of the institutions listed in a White House document, which included the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History and the International Cotton Advisory Committee. “The idea that you're doing a thorough review, and you focus on on this list of organisations—seems to be aiming a bit at the capillary rather than the artery.”
The US pullback from more international bodies marks yet another move away from soft power and toward Trump's more assertive “peace through strength” strategy.
As he roils NATO with pledges to seize Greenland from Denmark and unnerves diplomats worldwide with his unilateral capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Trump is underscoring his disdain for the international system that's governed global affairs since the end of World War II.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio slammed “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful” organisations, saying “it is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people.”
And it's possible, with Rubio saying the “review of additional international organisations remains ongoing,” that more could make the list.
But some analysts said the make-up of the list of groups the US was exiting — and the global bodies the US is remaining in — is a concession that many of these organisations still matter for US interests.
“I'm actually surprised at how tame this announcement was,” says Bloomberg Economics Analyst Chris Kennedy, noting that the US remained in several groups that some had urged Washington to leave, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “This reflects the recognition from some in the government that these organisations do, in fact, serve a purpose.”
When it comes to the UN more specifically, Washington technically can't pull out of some entities on the list since they are part of the wider UN Secretariat, according to Eugene Chen, a UN expert and non-resident advisor at the International Peace Institute.
“This is more symbolic or performative rather than having any sort of a practical impact,” Chen said.
The US has been tough on the UN in other ways: Washington didn't pay mandatory dues for 2025 and Trump did leave prominent UN organisations, including the World Health Organization and the UN agency that distributed aid in the Gaza Strip — which US and Israeli officials said was compromised by Hamas militants.
US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz often talks about how a big part of his campaign will be to bring the world body “back to basics.” But US officials are still engaging with the UN. In December, the Trump administration pledged $2 billion to the UN's humanitarian arm, and a month earlier they'd hard to get Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza supported at the UN Security Council.
But leaving some groups could have unintended consequences for the US, including opening the door for China and inviting other countries to pick and choose which parts of the UN they want to support. Already, Israel's foreign ministry announced it would be severing contact with a number of UN agencies.
“As much as the UN may be a punching bag for the US, it does need this system of international cooperation to address a lot of its peace and security priorities,” said Daniel Forti, who heads UN affairs at the International Crisis Group.
