Eija Ranta: The effects of the US withdrawal from international organizations

In January 2026, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential memorandum for the withdrawal of the US from 66 international organizations. Thirty-one of these were UN-affiliated, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the UN Democracy Fund. While research literature demonstrates strong resilience of international organizations over time, the loss of US membership and funding is resulting in major cuts and restructuring of operations across organizations. Their capacity to address global challenges is weakening. Furthermore, by withdrawing from international organizations and agreements, the US is diminishing the credibility and predictability of multilateral frameworks.

The withdrawal was preceded by the 2025 freeze of US foreign aid operations and the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). As the US has traditionally been the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid and a significant contributor to international development cooperation, Trump’s actions have led to a major crisis in these sectors.

International organizations and treaties have served as the foundation of the post-WWII international order. The US withdrawal has led to uncertainty in global governance and cooperation, leading many to question US reliability as a partner.

Signaling a major shift in US foreign policy, Trump’s America First policy favors transactionalism and bilateral agreements over multilateralism. The agreements must clearly benefit the US economy. One example of a significant change is the WHO, from which the US withdrew, citing failures in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Complex and well institutionalized health infrastructure built in Africa over decades has been undermined, giving way to questionable bilateral health deals. In these arrangements, African countries receive US aid in exchange for access to natural resources or even biodata.

The US withdrawal from the UNFPA exemplifies the deepening of conservative values in US foreign policy. The UNFPA has been the world’s leading organization for sexual and reproductive rights, gender equality, and population data for development. Since Reagan, the organization has faced criticism from every Republican president regarding abortion rights, and Trump is no exception. The difference is that now the Trump administration has expanded the Global Gag Rule, which prevents federal funding from organizations providing or supporting abortion, to explicitly condition all foreign aid. Effective since February 2026, the “Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance” (PHFFA) policy prohibits recipients of US foreign aid from providing abortion services and advocacy, promoting gender equality (dubbed as “gender ideology”), and doing diversity and inclusion programming. Instead of the UN, which is condemned as promoting leftist, “woke,” and “globalist” agendas, the US seeks to build a new alternative network of international alliances based on religious values, the sanctity of families, and traditional gender roles.

Although a small organization, the US withdrawal from the UN Democracy Fund is notable in times of global democratic decay. International organizations, and the values they promote, are increasingly portrayed as threats to national self-determination. Trump’s discursive emphasis on US national interests and sovereignty parallels discursive strategies of authoritarian states that condemn international democracy promotion as Western interference. Defenders of democracy throughout the world face reduced opportunities, as their international supporters are increasingly vanishing.

The decline of US influence in international bodies has potentially created opportunities for other nations, particularly China and Russia, to expand their influence on the global stage. China’s influence is particularly significant in the Global South, whose countries make up the majority of UN member states.

In summary, the US withdrawal from international organizations undermines multilateralism, promotes the spread of conservative values, and reinforces the discourse on national interests and sovereignty.

Yet, the need for global governance has not diminished; rather, it remains essential. Ongoing challenges such as wars, pandemics, climate change, and humanitarian crises all demand collaborative solutions.

The development and humanitarian challenges have not disappeared from the world. Poverty reduction has stalled, and severe hunger and malnutrition remain a daily reality for hundreds of millions of people, particularly in areas of conflict. Climate change is undermining opportunities for a dignified life, especially in the poorest countries, which have the least capacity to prevent and mitigate its effects.