Trump: Trim the fat from the international system or let it starve to death

As soon as he returned to the White House, Donald Trump implemented a substantial reduction in organization chart U.S. organization chart and workforce (the DOGE program led by Elon Musk), driven more by ideological motives than by proven results. He has sought to do the same in the realm of foreign policy. The diminished commitment to the international order—which the United States itself helped create decades ago—is evident in the withdrawal numerous international organizations, many of them part of the UN system, whose very existence Trump has even called into question. From Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points to its veto power on the UN committee , the U.S. has been the leading force in the liberal international order. Does Trump simply intend to trim the fat from global institutions, or does he seek to let them starve to death?

Even during his first term, Trump showed little regard for the UN; his greatest reservations centered on the United Nations committee (UNHRC), from which he withdrew the U.S. in 2018; the World Health Organization (WHO), with which he clashed particularly sharply in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; and the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In his second term, he took immediate action against these organizations. On the very day of his second inauguration, January 20, 2025, Trump signed the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO; in February, he signed the new withdrawal UNHRC (to which Biden had returned); and in July, he announced the withdrawal from UNESCO. Even then, he ordered a review of U.S. membership in all other global organizations; the result that review were announced in January 2026, when Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from another 66 international organizations, 31 of which belonged to the UN system.

The White House justified this withdrawal by criticizing international organizations for pursuing “globalist agendas” that take precedence over U.S. priorities, or for addressing issues—which are certainly important but should be approach—in an “inefficient or ineffective” manner. With his decision, Trump sought to “restore U.S. sovereignty” by moving away from “radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.” Likewise, the purpose of leaving these organizations is to save taxpayers money and redirect economic resources toward priorities guided by the “America First” principle, according to the White House.

The department began carrying out Trump's orders with a statementframework described the international organizations from which the U.S. was leave “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful.” According to the Secretary of State, “what began as a framework of international organizations for peace and cooperation has transformed into a vast architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideologies and detached from national interests.” Specifically, he referred to mandates on diversity, equity, and inclusion; campaigns for gender equality and climate orthodoxy; and globalism “rooted in the discredited fantasy of the ‘End of History.’”

Of the 66 organizations on the list, 31 belong to the United Nations system, including the International Law Commission, the International Trade Centre, the Peacebuilding Commission and Fund, the Alliance of Civilizations, the Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, the framework Convention framework Climate Change, the Register of Conventional Arms, the Population Fund, and UN-Oceans. Although these entities have generally not received much public attention, in some cases they have been decisive for the development international cooperation, such as the committee and Social committee (ECOSOC) and its commissions for Latin America (ECLAC) and Africa (ECA).

Lower international contributions

In addition to following ideological criteria, the Trump administration has acted out of domestic considerations. U.S. public opinion remains favorable toward the UN—60% still believe it is necessary—but support has declined compared to the 1990s; furthermore, among Republicans, the view of the United Nations system is negative, according survey a 2025 Gallup survey . Thus, 75% of Republican voters say the UN is doing a poor work, 59% believe it does not play a necessary role in today’s world, and 70% believe the United States should reduce its funding to the UN.

Since the beginning of this century, the United States’ contribution to budget UN’sregular budget has stood at 22%, down from the 40% it contributed in the early years of the UN’s founding and the 25% it contributed in the final decades of the 20th century. China, whose contributions did not even reach 1% in 2000, now contributes 20%.

But beyond the budget , there are other expenses to which the U.S. also contributes significantly. For example, the U.S. contributed 26% of budget for peacekeeping operations in 2025—and this despite the fact that the Trump administration cut back on some of its commitments, ultimately forcing the “blue helmets” written request restructure their deployments.

Taking into account the entire United Nations system, including its various agencies, the United States contributed $14.3 billion in 2024, accounting for 30.6% of the total contributions made by all countries, largely due to the significant amount of its voluntary contributions. This final figure exceeds the combined contributions of the next five countries (Germany, the United Kingdom, China, and Japan).

In addition to the savings the United States could realize from withdrawing from the aforementioned organizations, the Trump administration has also carried out a reorganization leave its commitments subject development financial aid . While implementing its policy of downsizing the public administration the DOGE program in early 2025, the Trump administration proceeded to shut down the United States Agency for development (USAID). The decision sparked significant controversy: while the U.S. had long faced criticism for not providing sufficient aid to the rest of the world, a study in The Lancet estimated that the funding cut would have catastrophic consequences, resulting in 14 million deaths by 2030. The department replaced the defunct program with another initiative titled “Making Foreign Aid Great Again,” whose goal to serve U.S. interests in this field in agreement the priorities set by the Trump Administration.

Selective rollback

In the global context, the foreign policy strategy pursued by the Trump administration can be explained by the transition to a multipolar system. The United States is abandoning the international architecture it built since the end of World War II with the contribution of many other countries, and whose fruit—political and economic liberalism—became widespread during the “unipolar moment” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union; it now pursues its interests more pragmatically through the use of force or through bilateral or more exclusive agreements.

There is not, strictly speaking, a collapse of the United Nations, because Washington has not completely withdrawn from the liberal international order (it remains a member of the UN and several other key organizations), but the United States is pursuing a policy of selective withdrawal from certain multilateral bodies, such as those mentioned above, as well as from global commitments like the agreement , among others.

The United States is backing away from previously made commitments, including oversight mechanisms and international standards. The international system is evolving into a more fragmented one, shifting from a focus on finding common ground to reaching more specific agreements with less cohesion, which undermines the stability and predictability that once defined many aspects of framework .

By rejecting universal systems such as the United Nations, Trump has shown no interest in establishing alternative frameworks that, in his view, might prove more effective. Instead, he has sought alliances characterized by greater ideological or economic exclusivity and a strong personalist nature. This is the case with his Board of Peace, whose stated mission statement secure a peaceful future for the Gaza Strip. To become a permanent member of this initiative, a contribution of $1 billion is required, though no one appears to have paid this sum; Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto clarified that he never intended to contribute the amount.

Impact on the Inter-American system

The Trump administration has made safeguarding its interests in the Western Hemisphere a priority of its foreign policy, as outlined in its National Security Strategy. This might lead one to believe that its reduced commitment to the international order does not extend to the inter-American order. However, Washington has also made adjustments within the inter-American context.

In July 2025, the department threatened that the U.S. might withdraw from the Organization of American States (OAS) if left-wing Latin American governments used the organization “as a forum to antagonize” Washington. The threat has not been carried out (among other reasons because the issue countries in the region aligned with the Republican administration has increased), but the U.S. is delaying payments to the organization, which are vital to its operations. The United States contributes 49.9% of budget OAS’s budget , which, according to the budget for 2026 amounts to a contribution of $53 million, although its contributions exceed that share when voluntary transfers are taken into account. This economic dependence of the OAS—which is also headquartered in Washington—on the United States has allowed the U.S. to exert some pressure on the organization on certain occasions, although other nations can coordinate to circumvent it (Brazil pays 15% of the dues and Canada 12%); in any case, without a substantial U.S. contribution, the OAS could not survive.

The aforementioned closure of USAID has led to the elimination of 5,200 of the 6,200 programs thatwere underway in the region, ranging from support for political development to cooperation on subject . Countries such as Mexico and Colombia have been identified as the most affected, as their drug prevention and enforcement policies depended very directly on U.S. funding through entities such as the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), whose budget has effectively eliminated.

The “securitization” approach the Trump administration is taking to regional issues is leading to direct U.S. intervention, with the military playing a front-line role, such as the attacks on drug-smuggling boats by U.S. Southern Command. This approach relations with the rest of the Americas, as evidenced by the creation of the Shield of the Americas, whose inaugural summit Trump convened in Miami in early March to combat gangs, criminal cartels, and narco-terrorists, as well as illegal and mass immigration. As with the Board of Peace, this is also a highly personalistic initiative that prioritizes the U.S.’s bilateral relations with individual countries rather than fostering a multilateral dynamic, thereby creating further regional fragmentation and reinforcing asymmetrical negotiations.