WASHINGTON: In a sweeping overhaul of America's global footprint, President Donald Trump has authorised the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations, marking one of the most significant retreats from multilateralism in modern history.The move, announced on January 7 via a presidential memorandum, affects 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN groups, including key bodies focused on climate, health, and education. This action coincides with Trump's call for a $1.5 trillion defence budget in fiscal year 2027, a staggering 50% increase over current levels, fueling debates about a shift toward a "Fortress America" doctrine that prioritises domestic strength and protectionism over global engagement.

Trump Pulls U.S. Out of 66 Global Bodies, Slams UN Groups As ‘Woke’ & Anti-American

The withdrawals build on an Executive Order issued shortly after Trump's inauguration in February 2025, which directed a review of US participation in international bodies deemed contrary to national interests. Prominent targets include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signaling a complete US exit from global climate pacts; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), from which the US had briefly rejoined under the previous administration; and potentially the World Health Organization (WHO), echoing Trump's first-term defunding over alleged biases toward China.

Other entities span trade, human rights, and environmental forums, with the State Department citing a total of 66 as "wasteful, ineffective, or harmful." In some cases, Washington has formally withdrawn; in others, it has suspended funding, reduced diplomatic engagement or signalled an intention to exit when legal timelines allow.Administration officials say these organisations "no longer serve American interests" and often promote policies seen as hostile or inefficient.

For instance, climate-related bodies are criticised for imposing undue burdens on US business and industry without reciprocal commitments from “major emitters” like China and India, even though their per capita emission is a fraction of American emissions. UNESCO and similar groups face accusations of waste and mismanagement, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio highlighting redundancy and a lack of tangible benefits for US taxpayers.Trump himself has framed the decisions as part of his "America First" agenda, arguing that funds previously allocated to these entities—estimated at billions annually—should be redirected domestically to address border security, infrastructure, and economic recovery. Supporters, including Republican lawmakers, applaud the move as a correction to decades of overcommitment, freeing resources amid a national debt nearing $40 trillion.Foreign policy experts point to the December 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), which critiques US allies in Europe and Asia for insufficient burden-sharing while prioritising unilateral actions. The document, released under Trump's direction, describes an "America First" framework that sceptics label as neo-isolationist, though administration officials insist it avoids outright withdrawal from core alliances like NATO, which is also under siege from Washington over the Greenland issue.This approach is straining U.S ties across the globe: European leaders have decried the US exits as a blow to collective security, while adversaries like Russia and China are relishing the perceived vacuum. Partners like India, Japan, and Australia have been hung out to dry. Analysts argue the policy fosters adversity by undermining multilateralism, with some of them warning that Trump's strategy risks damaging US power, economy, and security through hostility toward global cooperation.The proposed $1.5 trillion defence budget, unveiled on January 7, underscores this pivot. Trump justified the hike—up from the current $1 trillion as essential for building a "dream military," with allocations for nuclear modernisation, missile defence, and cyber capabilities. “After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 trillion, but rather $1.5 trillion.

This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday.But even at $ 1 trillion, the U.S already spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. The $1.5 trillion figure would add an estimated $5.8 trillion to the national debt – already at a record $ 38 trillion – if sustained over a decade.

Defence stocks surged in response, reflecting investor confidence in a build-up of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower had warned about.Detractors contend the budget epitomises "Fortress America"—a term evoking pre-World War II isolationism—by channelling resources inward at the expense of diplomacy, and perhaps even democracy. Fiscal watchdogs, meanwhile, highlight the irony: While slashing international funding, the proposal inflates military spending – already considered profligate – despite Trump's campaign promises to curb waste.