WITHDRAWING THE UNITED STATES FROM AND ENDING FUNDING TO CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATIONS AND REVIEWING UNITED STATES SUPPORT TO ALL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

White House Link: Full Text of the Executive Order

Context: Patterns of Unconstitutional or Authoritarian Tendencies

This executive action is part of a broader pattern of recent moves by the administration that critics say undermine constitutional norms and exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Within the first days of the term, the White House heralded a flurry of executive orders as “historic productivity,” but observers note it was actually a “campaign of systematic rollbacks—targeting more than a hundred fundamental freedoms with chilling speed” [10]. From curbing independent civil service protections to harsh immigration crackdowns, these actions often bypass Congress and erode institutional checks. We have argued that this barrage of unilateral directives has “nullified key checks on executive power” in the name of an “America First” agenda, indicating a clear path of autocratic tendencies [10]. Pulling out of international organizations fits that pattern: it concentrates foreign policy power in the executive, sidesteps the Senate’s constitutional role in treaties, and rejects external oversight. In context, the administration had already withdrawn the U.S. from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement via executive order [3]. Such steps reflect a nationalist, go-it-alone posture that, according to legal experts, emboldens authoritarian governance tendencies by removing external and internal constraints on the President’s authority.

Executive Order Breakdown: Provisions, Intentions vs. Implications

1. Exit from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): The order directs that the United States “will not participate in the UNHRC and will not seek election to that body”, effectively formalizing a U.S. withdrawal [2]. It even abolishes the position of U.S. Representative to the UNHRC [2].
- Stated Intent: To protest a forum the administration says “has protected human rights abusers” and shown “chronic bias” against U.S. ally Israel [1]. The White House frames it as refusing to legitimize a flawed council.
- Actual Implications: Largely symbolic in the short term – the U.S. was not a current voting member in 2025 (having just completed a term under Biden) [8]. However, it means the U.S. will have no voice or even observer presence in the UN’s top human rights body. America forfeits its seat at the table to call out abuses or defend its own record, leaving that influence to others. Human rights organizations and lawmakers warn that, flawed as it is, the Council is still important for policing abuses worldwide [1]. By abandoning it, the U.S. surrenders leadership in shaping global human-rights norms, potentially emboldening repressive regimes who no longer face U.S. scrutiny there [4]. As one congressman put it, “Walking away doesn’t make the world better—it makes it easier for the worst regimes to act with impunity. Once again, Trump weakens America and betrays our values.” [4] In sum, the administration’s intended message of toughness against UN bias carries the real cost of diminished U.S. influence and moral authority.

2. Halting Funding to UNRWA (Palestinian Refugee Agency): The order immediately blocks U.S. contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) [2]. It also directs the State Department to withhold the portion of U.S. dues to the U.N. regular budget that would go toward UNHRC [2].
- Stated Intent: To stop U.S. tax dollars from supporting organizations deemed hostile to American interests or allies. The White House justifies defunding UNRWA by alleging it “has been infiltrated” by terrorists and citing reports that some UNRWA staff aided Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel [2].
- Actual Implications: In practice this move codifies a funding halt that was already in place – Congress had suspended UNRWA aid pending review through at least March 2025 [8]. But making the cut permanent carries significant humanitarian and strategic consequences. UNRWA is the main lifeline for about 5.5 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and neighboring countries, providing food, schools, and medical services [8][5]. The U.S. had been UNRWA’s largest donor (over \$300–\$400 million per year) until these recent freezes [1][8]. Completely zeroing out support will deepen an ongoing humanitarian crisis – UNRWA itself warned that operations in Gaza and the West Bank will suffer without funding [1]. For the innocent families relying on this aid, the cut is devastating. “Cutting off UNRWA funding is an attack on innocent Palestinian families who rely on it… This will only deepen suffering, fuel instability, and make America less safe,” said Rep. James McGovern, co-chair of the House Human Rights Commission [5]. In other words, the administration’s intent to appear tough on a U.N. agency translates into greater instability in the Middle East, which can boomerang on U.S. security interests. Diplomatically, it also puts the U.S. at odds with European and Arab allies who continue to support UNRWA’s humanitarian mission. The loss of U.S. funding may be partially filled by others, but the U.S. abdicates leverage and goodwill it once earned by aiding vulnerable populations.

3. Reviewing UNESCO Membership: The order calls for a 90-day interagency review of U.S. membership in UNESCO (the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) [2]. This review, led by the Secretary of State, is to evaluate whether UNESCO supports U.S. interests and specifically to assess any “anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment” in the organization [2].
- Stated Intent: To scrutinize an agency the administration views as having “continually demonstrated anti-Israel sentiment over the past decade” and failed reforms [2]. Essentially, it’s portrayed as leveraging U.S. participation to demand UNESCO stop anti-Israel biases.
- Actual Implications: It strongly signals a likely U.S. exit (or continued suspension) from UNESCO. Notably, the U.S. had only just planned to rejoin UNESCO in 2023–24 under the prior administration after a years-long absence [7]. (The U.S. quit UNESCO in 2018, alongside Israel, over similar bias accusations, and before that had withheld funding since 2011 due to UNESCO’s recognition of Palestinian membership [7].) Reversing course yet again means UNESCO will proceed without the United States – and without U.S. funding, which historically made up one-fifth of its budget [7]. For Americans, leaving UNESCO has tangible downsides: UNESCO designates World Heritage Sites (which include U.S. landmarks) and leads international efforts on education, science, and culture. Losing our membership could hinder American scientists and educators from collaboration programs and forfeit U.S. influence over initiatives on digital policy, AI ethics, and cultural preservation. Diplomatically, withdrawing cedes further ground to rival powers – for example, U.S. officials openly acknowledged that the decision to rejoin was driven by concern that China was “filling the gap” left by the U.S. in UNESCO’s policymaking [7]. By pulling out, Washington invites Beijing and others to continue shaping global cultural and scientific norms unchallenged. In short, while the administration’s intent is to protest bias, the effect is that the U.S. likely remains on the sidelines of yet another international forum – a self-imposed loss of influence that undercuts the ability to advance American values within UNESCO’s global programs.

4. “Radical” Review of All International Commitments: Perhaps most far-reaching is Section 3(b) of the order, which mandates a sweeping 180-day review of “all international intergovernmental organizations” of which the U.S. is a member and “all conventions and treaties” to which the U.S. is party [2]. The Secretary of State must identify which organizations or agreements are “contrary to the interests of the United States” and even whether they “promote radical or anti‑American sentiment,” then recommend potential U.S. withdrawals [1].
- Stated Intent: To ensure that U.S. involvement in the world strictly aligns with American interests and values. The administration pitches this as a prudent audit to stop supporting any international venture that undermines U.S. sovereignty or goals. It pointedly uses ideological language – targeting anything seen as “anti-American” – reflecting the President’s view that many global institutions harbor left-wing or hostile agendas.
- Actual Implications: This little-noticed clause casts a very wide net and injects uncertainty into every U.S. international commitment. In effect, no treaty or organization is automatically safe – from defense alliances and trade pacts to arms control treaties and human rights conventions, all could be on the chopping block. The vague criteria (what counts as “radical” sentiment?) leave enormous discretion to the executive. Such broad language has alarmed foreign policy experts, who note it’s unprecedented for a U.S. President to order a blanket review of all treaties/organizations with an eye toward mass withdrawal [1]. The historical norm has been to evaluate commitments case-by-case, not to presume guilt by association with multilateralism. The potential real-world impact is huge: for instance, could this lead to withdrawing from climate agreements (deemed too “radical” environmentally), from the World Health Organization (as already signaled), or even from security alliances like NATO if deemed not sufficiently “America First”? While it remains to be seen which targets are picked, the executive has given itself a green light to pull out of international obligations without seeking Senate approval. That raises constitutional questions (treaties are ratified by the Senate, and while Presidents have withdrawn from some unilaterally, doing so en masse or on ideological grounds is pushing the envelope). It also sends a chill through U.S. allies: the reliability of American commitments is now in doubt. Treaties that took decades to build could be discarded in months. Globally, this provision telegraphs an isolationist tilt – a signal that under this administration, the U.S. may further retreat from the post-WWII international order that it largely built. The intended “America First” posture could thus backfire by destabilizing international frameworks that help secure American interests (trade rules, security architectures, etc.). In summary, the expansive review provision is the clearest evidence that this executive action is not just about a couple of U.N. agencies – it’s a philosophical statement that multilateralism itself is under scrutiny. America’s decades-long bipartisan consensus of leading within international institutions is being replaced by an experimental policy of selective disengagement, driven by the President’s personal litmus tests.

Impact on Everyday Americans: Economic, Diplomatic, and Security Consequences

Economic Fallout

For the average American, the direct financial impact of withdrawing from these U.N. bodies is negligible in positive terms – the U.S. might save a few hundred million dollars that would have gone to U.N. programs, a tiny fraction of federal expenditures. (For context, the U.S. was contributing around \$340–\$400 million annually to UNRWA before the freeze [8], and its assessed share of the U.N. regular budget is about 22% [1].) However, any short-term savings could be outweighed by long-term economic risks. U.S. businesses benefit when America has a strong voice in international standard-setting organizations – whether it’s internet governance, aviation regulation, or intellectual property norms. By stepping back, the U.S. could lose clout in negotiations that shape global markets. For example, leaving UNESCO again might seem inconsequential, but UNESCO helps coordinate scientific cooperation and cultural industries; without U.S. input, standards or guidelines could evolve that put American firms at a disadvantage (e.g. favoring Chinese tech frameworks in education). More broadly, retreating from international development agencies could diminish U.S. influence in emerging markets, opening the door for competitors to strengthen ties and commerce there. There’s also a cost if instability rises due to U.S. disengagement. Defunding UNRWA may save some tax dollars now, but if the resulting instability in the Middle East leads to conflict or humanitarian disaster, oil prices could spike or military expenditures could increase – costs everyday Americans might feel in gas prices or even in tax-funded deployments. In short, economic interdependence means isolationist policies carry hidden prices: U.S. withdrawal can create voids that disrupt the global economy, which in turn can hurt American prosperity.

Diplomatic & Reputational Impact

This executive action has significant diplomatic ramifications that trickle down to ordinary Americans. Allies and adversaries alike closely watch U.S. commitments. By abruptly withdrawing from international organizations, the U.S. signals a retreat from global leadership. Long-time allies in Europe, Asia, and Africa who value the U.N. system may see the U.S. as less reliable or even as shirking its responsibilities. This weakens the alliances and partnerships that uphold a stable international environment benefiting U.S. trade and travel. When the U.S. disengages, other countries fill the leadership vacuum – often in ways counter to U.S. interests. A clear example is UNESCO: during the period of U.S. absence after 2018, China increased its influence over UNESCO’s agenda [7], steering conversations on technology and history that shape global narratives. American diplomats warn that if we’re not “at the table” in these forums, we can’t “shape the norms and policies of the future,” and even risk neglecting “the human rights of people in the United States” by not defending them on the world stage [6]. In practical terms, that could mean less international pressure or support when America faces issues – e.g. fewer allies speaking up for U.S. positions at the U.N., or a diminished ability to build coalitions (since trust in U.S. commitments has eroded). For everyday Americans, a loss of diplomatic goodwill can translate into travel difficulties, reduced cultural exchanges, or a scenario where in a crisis (a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror threat) the U.S. has fewer friends to turn to. Additionally, America’s soft power – its image as a champion of democracy and human rights – takes a hit. If the U.S. is seen as turning its back on human rights cooperation, it undermines the appeal of American ideals abroad. Immigrants, students, and tourists might over time choose other countries, affecting industries at home. Conversely, adversary nations will seize on U.S. absences to promote their own governance models. Overall, this withdrawal strategy risks isolating the U.S. diplomatically, which ultimately can make the world less congenial to American citizens and businesses.

Security Consequences

Perhaps most importantly, pulling out of international organizations can have direct security implications for Americans. U.N. agencies and multilateral treaties contribute to global stability in ways that safeguard the U.S. For instance, the UN Human Rights Council (while often criticized) shines a spotlight on abuses and can pressure rogue regimes – processes that align with U.S. security interests by discouraging conflicts and atrocities. By leaving the council, the U.S. loses a platform to address early warning signs of crises (like ethnic cleansing or political repression) that can eventually fuel wars or mass migrations. As one lawmaker noted, this hands a “victory to dictators and despots”, making it “easier for the worst regimes to act with impunity.” [4] History shows that unchecked regimes can foster terrorism, regional aggression, or humanitarian catastrophes that ultimately do involve America – whether through military intervention or refugee flows. Similarly, defunding UNRWA and potentially other U.N. programs could destabilize regions critical to U.S. security. The immediate fallout of cutting Palestinian aid is heightened desperation in Gaza and refugee camps – conditions that extremist groups exploit. Top U.S. officials and military leaders have long argued that supporting refugees abroad helps prevent terrorism by providing hope instead of hate. Now, with funding severed, a key stabilizing force in the Middle East is weakened. McGovern warned bluntly that this move “will only … make America less safe” by fueling instability that extremist actors thrive on [5]. Beyond counterterrorism, consider health security: although not part of this particular order, it comes on the heels of quitting the WHO – in the middle of global pandemic threats. Without cooperation through the WHO, Americans are more vulnerable to diseases crossing borders. The executive order’s directive to review all treaties could even jeopardize security pacts or arms control agreements. If treaties like New START (nuclear arms reduction) or others were deemed “contrary to U.S. interests” and abandoned, it could spark arms races or reduce insight into other nations’ weapons – clearly raising risks for Americans. Lastly, U.N. peacekeeping missions (funded partly by U.S. dues) help contain conflicts in places like Africa and the Middle East so that U.S. troops don’t have to. The U.S. withholding its support could degrade these missions, possibly requiring costlier American interventions later. In essence, withdrawing from international engagement trades short-term appearances for potentially higher long-term security costs. The average American is safer in a world where the U.S. is actively guiding international efforts, rather than one where global problems fester until they hit America’s doorstep.

Civil Liberties and Democratic Participation at Risk

While the primary targets of this executive action are international, the ripple effects threaten civil liberties and democratic norms at home.

Concentrated Executive Power: By concentrating decision-making in the executive branch (through sweeping reviews and withdrawals), the order sidelines the normal democratic process. International commitments – especially treaties – are supposed to involve the people’s representatives (the Senate). Here, the President is essentially asserting the power to unilaterally revoke or ignore agreements that Congress approved. This raises separation-of-powers concerns and diminishes the public’s voice in foreign policy. When major shifts (like leaving a human rights accord or an environmental treaty) happen via executive fiat, citizens lose the chance to debate or consent through their legislators. It’s governance by decree, edging toward the “imperial presidency” model. Over time, normalizing this approach can erode the constitutional checks that prevent abuses of power.
Loss of External Human Rights Oversight: Withdrawing from international human rights forums removes external safeguards for Americans’ rights and freedoms. The U.S. has historically invited scrutiny and participated in global human rights mechanisms in part to lead by example. When the U.S. undergoes a periodic review of its human rights record at the UN, or reports to treaty committees, it creates pressure to live up to our ideals (and gives civil society a venue to highlight shortcomings). By exiting the UNHRC and possibly other rights conventions, the administration is insulating itself from critique. This could embolden domestic crackdowns. For instance, if in the future the government enacts policies that infringe civil liberties (censoring media, targeting minority groups, etc.), there will be fewer formal international avenues for objection. Authoritarian regimes often withdraw from oversight bodies precisely to avoid accountability for rights violations – a path the U.S. now regrettably mirrors [9][6].
Chilling Effect on Dissent: The order’s rhetoric – targeting “radical…anti-American” elements abroad – labels dissenting international viewpoints as illegitimate. That mindset can easily translate domestically: critics of government policy might be painted as unpatriotic or aligned with foreign ideas. Democratic participation relies on open debate and respect for dissent. But if the government is purging international engagements that bring inconvenient criticisms, it could similarly dismiss internal critics as enemies of the state. Our analysis of these actions observes that when authorities silence career experts and dissenters, it “diminishes the essential guardrails that maintain responsible governance” [11]. We’ve seen other orders muzzle federal agencies, intimidate civil servants, and criminalize aspects of protest under the guise of “law and order.” Now, by repudiating international oversight, the administration further weakens the safeguards on rights. It’s severing ties with global civil society (e.g. human rights NGOs often work via the UN), which means one less recourse for Americans if their rights are violated.
Undermining the Values of Liberal Democracy: America’s constitutional rights have always been bolstered by a broader international consensus that those rights are fundamental. By retreating from that consensus, the U.S. risks normalizing actions that infringe liberties. For example, if the U.S. were to withdraw from the U.N. Convention Against Torture or other human rights treaties in this 180-day review, it would send a signal that prohibitions on torture or cruel treatment are no longer agreed commitments – potentially affecting how detainees are treated or how police violence is addressed. Even if domestic laws stay the same, the loss of an international commitment weakens the moral and legal force behind those liberties. American civil rights movements have often leveraged international principles (calling out the U.S. on the world stage to spur change – as in the civil rights era, or more recently with UN experts criticizing systemic racism in policing). If the U.S. government declares such international input “anti-American” and shuts it out, it could stunt the progress of rights at home.

In summary, this executive action, coupled with parallel moves, constricts the channels through which democracy normally operates – both by cutting out legislative oversight and by insulating the government from external accountability. The risk is a more unchecked executive that can curtail liberties with less scrutiny. It’s part of what one comprehensive review dubbed a blueprint for “erasing civil liberties under the guise of ‘making history’” [10]. The irony is that in claiming to defend American sovereignty, the administration may be endangering the very freedoms and rule-of-law principles that make American democracy strong.

Historical Parallels and Lessons

History provides several examples – from past U.S. administrations and other governments – that shed light on the potential consequences of these steps:

Trump Administration 1.0 (2017–2021): The current moves are nearly a carbon copy of actions from President Trump’s first term, and we have the benefit of hindsight on those. In 2018, Trump similarly withdrew the U.S. from the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO, and cut funding to UNRWA [1][7]. At the time, those decisions were met with widespread criticism and ultimately proved temporary. No meaningful reforms resulted from the U.S. boycott – instead, U.S. allies continued working within those bodies, and adversaries took advantage of the U.S. absence. The Biden administration reversed many of these policies: it rejoined the UNHRC in 2021 and UNESCO in 2023, and restored Palestinian aid, attempting to repair U.S. credibility. Notably, UNESCO’s leadership even enacted reforms to address U.S. concerns [7], illustrating that engagement, not withdrawal, is what yielded changes. The on-again, off-again U.S. posture also had costs: UNESCO lost funding for a decade due to earlier U.S. pullouts, and the UNHRC in 2019-2020 lacked the U.S. voice when countries like China and Russia were gaining seats. The lesson from Trump’s first term is that retreating often backfires. Repeating that cycle now in 2025 could deepen skepticism among allies regarding U.S. reliability.
Reagan Era UNESCO Withdrawal (1984): President Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, claiming the agency was corrupt and anti-Western. It took almost 20 years (until 2003) for the U.S. to rejoin [7]. The pattern here – leave in protest, then rejoin once reforms or geopolitical shifts occur – underscores that long-term isolation is rarely tenable. The current administration is invoking that precedent to justify new exits, yet history also shows the U.S. tends to come back when it realizes absence yields less, not more, leverage.
League of Nations and U.S. Isolationism (1920s–30s): After World War I, the United States famously refused to join the League of Nations, weakening that institution and missing a chance to shape collective responses to aggression. The world paid a high price in World War II. The cautionary lesson: U.S. retreat from global cooperation can encourage a slide toward instability that eventually ensnares America.
Authoritarian Governments Avoiding Accountability: It’s common for autocrats to withdraw from international bodies that constrain them. For instance, the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte withdrew from the ICC in 2018 once it investigated his drug war [9]. Russia withdrew from the ICC’s jurisdiction amid war crimes accusations. Such regimes justify exits by claiming bias or “anti-[country]” sentiment, similar to the language of “anti-American sentiment” in this EO. The motive is often to free their hand to violate rights with less scrutiny. The U.S. turning in this direction is alarming because it emulates regimes we historically condemned, giving them cover and legitimacy.
Rejoining and Restoring: U.S. retreats are often followed by attempts at restoration. We saw this in 2021 when President Biden immediately halted the U.S. withdrawal from WHO and rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement. Should a future administration reverse the current course, it may find a lot of damage to repair. Allies may demand stronger assurances to prevent policy whiplash. American diplomats warn that constant in-and-out behavior is “no way to lead” and squanders the credibility that underpins American power [6]. This volatility is costly for the U.S. and confusing to the international community.

In conclusion, historical parallels suggest that the executive order’s approach – retreating from multilateral engagement – carries significant risks. Past administrations that tried similar tactics often saw the U.S. isolated with little to show for it, and successors had to pick up the pieces. Around the world, only regimes with something to hide tend to shun international oversight, and when the U.S. does so, it legitimizes their behavior. The consistent lesson is that U.S. interests (and values) are usually better advanced by leading within international organizations, not by abandoning them. As the saying goes, “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” This order pulls America out of important rooms, and everyday Americans may ultimately feel the consequences in lost influence, diminished rights, and a more dangerous world. The decision to withdraw might satisfy a domestic political urge to assert sovereignty, but history warns that the U.S. stands taller – and safer – when it stands with allies and upholds the international institutions that it helped create out of the ashes of past global crises.

IMPACT

The administration’s decision to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council, defund the Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA), and potentially leave UNESCO accelerates a pattern of U.S. disengagement from multilateral institutions. While officials cite concerns over bias and protecting American interests, these moves often undermine the very influence and leverage the U.S. once held within these global forums.

Cutting off UNRWA funding creates immediate humanitarian impacts on millions of Palestinian refugees, sowing instability that can spill over into broader regional tension. Similarly, quitting the Human Rights Council eliminates a high-profile platform where the U.S. could have addressed abuses worldwide, essentially ceding that influence to other countries less committed to human rights ideals.

A mandated 180-day review of “all international intergovernmental organizations” and treaties signals a radical reshuffling of U.S. foreign policy priorities. By framing certain bodies as “anti-American,” the administration grants itself broad discretion to exit critical alliances and agreements—potentially affecting everything from security pacts to trade deals.

These actions also raise constitutional concerns and democratic risks at home. They bypass congressional oversight in areas where the Senate has traditionally played a role—ratifying and reviewing treaties. Moreover, severing ties with human rights forums can embolden domestic crackdowns, as external watchdogs and accountability mechanisms dwindle.

Historically, U.S. withdrawals from international organizations have seldom produced the reforms or leverage gains promised. More often, the vacuum left by the United States is filled by other powers, and allies lose trust in America’s consistency. In the long run, this approach may weaken both global stability and the very American values that have underpinned U.S. leadership for decades.