Trump Administration’s Exit from UN, International Organizations Prompts Succession Concerns

After the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from dozens of United Nations and other international organizations, experts predict more international bodies may soon face similar cuts. The move to exit 66 international organizations follows President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order mandating a review of U.S. support for all international organizations.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the decision as a rejection of “an outdated model of multilateralism” that treats American taxpayers as “the world’s underwriter for a sprawling architecture of global governance.” Rubio emphasized that the State Department’s review of international organizations is ongoing, suggesting that the January cuts are merely the beginning of a broader reassessment.

“The international system is now overrun with hundreds of opaque international organizations, many with overlapping mandates, duplicative actions, ineffective outputs and poor financial and ethical governance,” Rubio stated, clarifying that the U.S. is not turning its back on the world but rather seeking to reform an inefficient system.

In response, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres expressed regret over the White House announcement. Through spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, Guterres reminded that “assessed contributions to the United Nations’ regular budget and peacekeeping budget…are a legal obligation under the U.N. Charter for all Member States, including the United States.”

Hugh Dugan, former Senior Director for International Organization Affairs at the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, suggested that Guterres had misinterpreted the administration’s intent. According to Dugan, Guterres viewed the executive order merely as a cost-cutting directive rather than a call for fundamental reform.

“In trying to cut his way to growth through the UN80 initiative, Guterres meat-cleavered budgets, hitting bone and flesh as much as fat, but at base it was business as usual: no focus on the U.N.’s pitiful return on investment,” Dugan said. The UN80 initiative, launched in March 2025, was designed to identify inefficiencies within the UN system and reduce costs across its bureaucracy.

Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, characterized the U.S. withdrawal from non-UN international organizations as “more pruning around the margins than a fundamental reassessment.” He noted that many of these organizations “don’t receive very much money” and “don’t necessarily merit U.S. funding or support.”

For the 31 UN-affiliated groups targeted, Schaefer viewed the withdrawals as “an opportunity to signal to the U.N. where the United States would like to see consolidation or elimination of duplication.” He noted that certain withdrawals, such as from the UN Population Fund and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, aligned with established Trump administration policies.

Looking ahead, Schaefer identified several organizations that could be subject to future cuts, including the World Meteorological Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and UN Development Programme (UNDP).

The UNDP, according to Schaefer, presents particular concerns. While smaller nations use it to administer humanitarian donations, the U.S. doesn’t need “a middleman” for aid distribution. He also cited past corruption issues, including allegations that the organization concealed North Korean counterfeit money and provided dual-use technology to the country.

Regarding the FAO, Schaefer expressed concern that it is “currently led by a Chinese national” who is “using that organization to promote Chinese policies and Chinese commercial interests in developing countries.” He suggested the U.S. could promote agricultural development through other entities.

UNOCHA has also drawn criticism after signing a memo “sharply critical of Israel” on December 31, which Schaefer described as “a violation of their neutrality.” He pointed to statements by Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher that echoed “false accusations of Israel causing famine and hunger” in Gaza.

When approached for comment, the UNDP defended its record, stating that it “has been a steadfast partner” with the U.S. and maintains “strict oversight and accountability policies.” The organization denied allegations of systematic fraud in its North Korea programs, noting that its DPRK project concluded in 2020.

A UNOCHA spokesperson highlighted that the U.S. had recently signed an agreement “reinforcing our partnership” and pledged $2 billion at the end of December for global humanitarian needs, suggesting the organization may be spared in future rounds of cuts.

As the review process continues, the international community remains watchful of which organizations might next face U.S. withdrawal, with potentially significant implications for global governance and humanitarian operations worldwide.