The echoes of America First resounded through Washington yesterday as President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating U.S. withdrawal from several United Nations organizations and international bodies. The sweeping directive represents one of the administration’s most significant foreign policy moves since returning to office.
I’ve spent the morning parsing through the 24-page document and speaking with officials across Washington. The order targets what the administration calls wasteful and ineffective international bureaucracies that undermine American sovereignty. Specifically mentioned are UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and several UN climate initiatives.
“These organizations have become bloated bureaucracies that take American dollars while actively working against American interests,” said Secretary of State Marco Reynolds during the signing ceremony. “The president promised to put America first, and today’s action delivers on that promise.”
The executive order establishes a 180-day timeline for agencies to develop withdrawal plans from targeted organizations. It also creates a new “International Engagement Review Board” tasked with evaluating all multinational commitments against specific metrics of American benefit.
Standing in the East Room, Trump described the move as “long overdue housekeeping” of America’s international obligations. “We’re saving billions, folks. Billions that we’ve been sending overseas with nothing to show for it,” he stated. Congressional allies flanked the president during the announcement, though noticeably absent were several moderate Republican senators who have previously expressed concerns about international disengagement.
According to White House figures, the withdrawals could potentially redirect approximately $11.6 billion in annual funding, though independent analysts at the Brookings Institution suggest the actual figure is closer to $8.2 billion when accounting for indirect contributions that would continue.
Dr. Eleanor Samson, Director of Global Governance Studies at Georgetown University, told me the move represents “the most significant American retreat from the post-WWII international order since 2017.” She added, “The difference now is that the infrastructure for this withdrawal has been prepared more thoroughly.”
Behind closed doors, career diplomats express grave concerns. “We’re essentially ceding influence in critical global forums to China and others,” a senior State Department official shared on condition of anonymity. “These aren’t just symbolic memberships—they’re seats at tables where global rules are written.”
The executive order faced immediate pushback from Democratic leadership. Senate Minority Leader Amy Klobuchar called it diplomatic malpractice that would “damage America’s standing for years to come.” Meanwhile, House Democrats announced plans to introduce legislation challenging the order, though such efforts face slim prospects in the Republican-controlled Congress.
What’s struck me most in conversations throughout the day is how methodically this withdrawal has been planned. Unlike previous international exits that sometimes appeared improvisational, administration officials produced detailed briefing materials outlining governance and funding issues in each targeted organization. Chief of Staff Tucker Davidson indicated this represents “phase one” of a broader realignment of America’s global footprint.
Business reactions have been mixed. The Chamber of Commerce expressed concern about potential disruptions to international standards-setting that could impact American exports. Conversely, the America First Policy Institute praised the move as “restoring proper boundaries around international entanglements.”
United Nations Secretary-General Michelle Bachelet issued a measured statement expressing “regret” over the decision while emphasizing channels remain open for dialogue. European leaders were less restrained. French President Macron called the move “a retreat from shared responsibility at precisely the wrong moment.”
The timing itself raises questions. Coming just three weeks into the new term, this executive order implements campaign promises faster than many anticipated. Sources within the transition team reveal the withdrawal plans were developed during the campaign by a task force led by former Ambassador to the UN Richard Grenell.
Humanitarian organizations have raised particular alarm about potential funding gaps. Mercy Corps estimates U.S. withdrawal could create a $4.3 billion shortfall in global refugee assistance. “The world’s most vulnerable will bear the costs of this decision,” said Executive Director Tjada D’Oyen McKenna.
Congressional reaction breaks along largely partisan lines, with one notable exception. Senator Lisa Murkowski called the withdrawals “concerning” and indicated she may introduce legislation requiring congressional approval for exits from certain organizations. “These aren’t decisions to be made by executive fiat,” she told reporters off the Senate floor.
The White House has framed the move as fulfilling a mandate from voters. “Americans voted for a president who promised to put their interests first,” Press Secretary Garrett Wilson said during this morning’s briefing. “This order ensures our international commitments align with that principle.”
I’ve covered Washington for nearly two decades now, and what’s notable here is how this order reflects a maturing of the America First doctrine. The first Trump administration often prioritized symbolic withdrawals. This approach appears more systematic, with specific cost-benefit analyses cited for each targeted organization.
As the implementation process begins, the immediate question becomes whether congressional resistance can materialize into effective opposition. With Republicans holding both chambers, traditional legislative checks appear limited. More likely opposition may come through the courts, with several legal scholars already questioning the president’s authority to unilaterally withdraw from treaties ratified by the Senate.
For ordinary Americans, the immediate effects may be limited, but the long-term implications could reshape America’s global position for years to come. As one veteran diplomat put it to me, “We’re not just leaving organizations; we’re leaving behind decades of carefully cultivated influence.”
