Following the Trump administration’s move to pull out of numerous United Nations and other global bodies, analysts indicate additional international organizations may soon face similar elimination.
The U.S. withdrawal announcement came after President Trump exit February 2025 executive order demanding an evaluation of American backing for “all international organizations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded to the announcement, stating the U.S. is “abandoning an obsolete multilateralism model that positions American taxpayers as global financiers for an extensive governance structure.” Rubio cautioned that reviews of international bodies continue, and the January reductions target “far from the only problematic entities.”
Rubio clarified that America isn’t abandoning global engagement but rather reassessing the “international system,” which he described as “flooded with hundreds of non-transparent global organizations featuring redundant missions, repetitive activities, ineffective results, and weak financial and ethical oversight.”
Hugh Dugan, previously Senior Director for International Organization Affairs at the NSC during Trump’s first term, informed Digital that Antonio Guterres “consistently misinterpreted” the earlier executive order “as merely a budget reduction mandate.” In attempting to “slash toward expansion” via the UN80 initiative,
Dugan stated Guterres “hacked budgets indiscriminately, cutting essential services along with waste, but fundamentally maintained the status quo: ignoring the UN’s dismal ROI. Rather than just reducing expenses, he should have boosted effectiveness through smarter operations.”
Initiated in March 2025, this program aimed to pinpoint inefficiencies within the UN system and reduce expenses throughout its vast bureaucracy. Reacting to Trump’s UN withdrawal, Guterres’ spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric issued a statement saying the secretary-general “regrets the White House announcement,” and affirmed that “assessed contributions to the UN regular and peacekeeping budgets constitute a legal duty under the UN Charter for all members, America included.”
Brett Schaefer, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Digital that affected non-UN organizations “receive minimal funding” and “don’t inherently warrant U.S. financial backing.” Exiting these groups represents “marginal trimming rather than a core reevaluation of America’s ties to global institutions,” he noted.
Regarding the 31 UN-affiliated entities targeted, Schaefer said the withdrawal serves as “a chance to communicate to the UN where the U.S. seeks consolidation and removal of redundancies, which are quite prevalent throughout the UN system.”
Schaefer stated that exiting the UN Population Fund and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change aligns “perfectly with Trump administration policy.” He also noted that withdrawing from UNCTAD formalizes a policy change from 2018, when UNCTAD accepted “Palestinians as full members,” triggering U.S. law that “banned American funding” for the body.
Other decisions, such as leaving the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, “didn’t entirely add up,” Schaefer commented. He pointed out that since the department receives funding through the standard UN budget, the action amounts to “more of a symbolic gesture than truly effective policy.”
Schaefer identified several organizations potentially facing future reductions, including the World Meteorological Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and UN Development Programme.
Although smaller countries use UNDP to manage their humanitarian contributions, America doesn’t require “an intermediary” to finance NGOs and deliver assistance, Schaefer said. He also highlighted the organization’s “corruption issues,” including hiding North Korean counterfeit currency and supplying the regime with dual-use technology.
Schaefer argued the U.S. can “advance agricultural development in developing nations” through channels other than FAO, which he claimed is “presently headed by a Chinese citizen” who is “leveraging that organization to advance Chinese policies and commercial interests in developing countries.”
On December 31, UNOCHA signed a memo that “strongly criticized Israel,” Schaefer stated. He considers the memo “a breach of their neutrality” warranting disciplinary action. Schaefer said Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher “has repeatedly voiced unfounded claims accusing Israel of creating famine and humanitarian distress in Gaza, allegations later proven false and baseless.”
WIPO, WMO, and FAO refused to comment on whether they could face future reductions.
A UNDP spokesperson stated that America “has remained a reliable partner” and that UNDP continues dedicated to collaborating with the U.S. to “tackle urgent humanitarian crises, foster stability, and drive global prosperity.” The spokesperson emphasized that “UNDP initiatives undergo rigorous monitoring and accountability procedures,” and UNDP “regularly ranks among the most transparent agencies in the Aid Transparency Index.”
Per the UNDP spokesperson, investigations into DPRK-related concerns in 2006 revealed “no proof of systematic fraud or fund misappropriation.” The spokesperson added that the DPRK initiative “ended in 2020, and any future involvement would need Executive Board consensus and explicit guidance from member states.”
A UNOCHA spokesperson highlighted that the U.S. recently inked an agreement with UNOCHA “strengthening our collaboration.”
The U.S. to UNOCHA at the end of December for global humanitarian needs.[iii] In recent years, officials previously told Digital that the U.S. had contributed between $8 and $10 billion to