“We Reject Ideology in Favor of Prudence” — The U.S. Is Withdrawing from More International Organizations

The United States has withdrawn from 66 international organizations and agreements. This is another such decision by President Donald Trump. In early February 2025, he issued Executive Order No. 14199, under which the United States withdrew from certain organizations operating within the UN and ceased providing them with financial support (this included, among others, the United Nations Human Rights Council). The decree also included provisions requiring the U.S. Secretary of State to conduct, within 180 days, a review of all international organizations and of conventions and treaties of which the United States is, respectively, a member or a party, in order to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States. In the decree, the U.S. Secretary of State was also tasked with presenting to the President recommendations on whether the United States should withdraw from participation in such organizations or international agreements, or whether they can be reformed or amended.

Less than a year later, on Wednesday, January 7, the White House officially announced that President Donald Trump, after reviewing the report submitted by the Secretary of State, decided to withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations and treaties, including 31 organizations operating within the UN system.

In a subsequent statement, published the same day for the media on the State Department’s website, the department indicated that the White House’s decision stems from the fact that these organizations and agreements were deemed redundant in terms of scope of activity, as well as poorly managed, unnecessary, wasteful, badly run, captured by entities pursuing their own goals contrary to U.S. interests, and posing a threat to the sovereignty, freedom, and general welfare of the United States. ” The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over,” the statement said.

In the cited State Department statement, it was also emphasized that President Trump’s decision stems from the fact that the organizations that appeared on the list engaged in ideologically driven activities, including promoting DEI policy – intended to introduce “diversity, equality, and inclusivity”, pursuing a “gender equality” policy (gender equality) and promoting “climate orthodoxy.”

“We will not continue expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests. We seek cooperation where it serves our people and will stand firm where it does not We reject inertia and ideology in favor of prudence and purpose. We seek cooperation where it serves our people and will stand firm where it does not,” the U.S. Department of State’s press statement goes on to say.

The U.S. administration’s list includes, among others, the following international organizations and agreements:

– Global Forum on Migration and Development;

– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

– International Energy Forum;

– the Venice Commission, a body operating within the Council of Europe, officially as European Commission for Democracy through Law;

– United Nations Economic and Social Council;

– United Nations International Law Commission;

– United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;

– United Nations Democracy Fund;

– United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

– United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

– United Nations Population Fund;

“When commenting on the U.S. administration’s decision, it should be noted that its representatives pointed to the ideological involvement of some of the entities on the list in projects associated with ‘progressive” views. International cooperation in today’s complex realities of the modern world is a necessity. However, this cooperation must not lead to restricting the sovereignty of individual states nor serve as a means of imposing specific ideologies on those states,” emphasizes Patryk Ignaszczak of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.