US Withdrawal from Global Bodies and the Future of Multilateralism

Context

In 2025, under President Donald Trump, the United States ordered withdrawal from 66 international organisations. This decision signals a shift away from multilateralism and may weaken global institutions while expanding China’s influence in global governance.

Q1. What is the latest decision taken by the US on global organisations?

1. President Trump issued a formal memorandum directing US withdrawal from 66 international bodies.
2. These include several UN agencies and the International Solar Alliance, led by India and France.
3. The administration described these organisations as redundant, costly, and contrary to US national interests.
4. Immediate implementation was ordered across federal agencies.

Q2. Why does the US government justify exiting international organisations?

1. Cost Without Control
   1. The US argues it contributes disproportionately while having limited agenda-setting power.
   2. Trump labels multilateral institutions as “globalist” and misaligned with US priorities.
2. Alleged Pro-China Bias
   1. The administration claims international bodies favour China despite lower Chinese financial contributions.
   2. US funding is seen as indirectly strengthening China’s position.
3. WHO Exit as a Template
   1. The US exited the World Health Organization in January 2025.
   2. It cited lack of reform and political influence over decision-making.
   3. China’s lower contribution relative to population size was highlighted as unfair burden-sharing.
4. Shift to Transactional Diplomacy
   1. The policy reflects preference for unilateral action over rules-based multilateral governance.

Q3. What does the US withdrawal from climate institutions signify?

1. The US announced its intention to exit from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
2. This will be the first-ever withdrawal from the UNFCCC by any country.
3. The decision reduces US influence over global climate negotiations and green economic frameworks.
4. It follows earlier disengagement, including skipping the UN climate summit for the first time in nearly three decades.

Q4. Why are exits from UN Women and UNFPA significant?

1. The US will withdraw from the UN Women and UN Population Fund.
2. UNFPA supports maternal health and family planning in over 150 countries.
3. US funding cuts further weaken humanitarian and social sector programmes.
4. The move reduces global capacity to address gender equality and public health.

Q5. What impact will US exits have on global institutions?

1. Funding Shock: Reduced voluntary and mandatory US contributions weaken institutional capacity.
2. Leadership Vacuum: Declining US engagement diminishes normative and agenda-setting leadership.
3. Opportunity for China: China is well-positioned to fill gaps using its financial resources and institutional presence.
4. Weakened Multilateralism: Collective problem-solving on health, climate, and development is undermined.

Q6. How does the US seek to project power outside multilateral institutions?

1. Economic and Military Tools
   1. The US continues to rely on tariffs and military force.
   2. In 2025, US military actions occurred in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, and Iran.
2. Selective Multilateral Engagement
   1. A complete withdrawal from the UN is unlikely.
   2. The US aims to stay engaged where China holds veto power to counter influence from within.
3. Retention of Strategic Bodies
   1. Continued participation in:
      1. International Telecommunication Union
      2. International Maritime Organization
      3. International Labour Organization
   2. These bodies shape global standards critical to trade and technology.
4. Alliances and Deterrence
   1. Despite friction, the US has reaffirmed commitment to NATO.
   2. Diplomacy is backed by credible military deterrence.

Conclusion

The US retreat from global institutions weakens multilateral governance and creates strategic space for China. While Washington retains power through force and selective engagement, long-term erosion of institutional leadership may reshape global order.