One by one, Trump is withdrawing the US from international organizations

US President Donald Trump is reshaping foreign policy with radical decisions, including withdrawals from international organizations, which has sparked debate among supporters and opponents.

It is known that since returning to the White House on January 20, 2025, Trump has initiated sweeping changes that have reshaped the landscape of US foreign policy.

In what appeared to be a redefinition of America's role on the global stage, Trump introduced a series of decisions that withdrew the country from several UN organizations and halted funding for key international programs, prompting a range of reactions from support to sharp criticism.

Withdrawal from the World Health Organization

At the beginning of his second term, Trump wasted no time in delivering his first major blow to the World Health Organization (WHO), by signing an executive order initiating the United States' withdrawal from the agency.

This move was not a surprise, given that he had criticized the organization during his first term, accusing it of mismanaging the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump argued that the US had only suffered losses from its involvement with the WHO, prompting him to completely sever ties and announce a reallocation of US funds towards other health initiatives, away from the international body's oversight.

A double whammy: The Human Rights Council and UNRWA

In another bold move, the White House announced on February 4, 2025, that the US would withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council, accusing it of adopting unilateral policies against Israel – a claim that Trump had repeatedly used to criticize the council.

But his actions didn't stop there; Trump also decided to halt all US funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), citing its alleged ties to Hamas.

The agency rejected these accusations, insisting that its programs were focused on supporting refugees in the most needy regions.

Reducing the role of the American agency

As part of his policy to reduce US involvement in international affairs, Trump dealt a severe blow to global development efforts.

It did this by withdrawing most of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) staff from their global assignments.

Trump's decision reportedly led to the suspension of dozens of vital programs in areas such as health, education, and epidemic control in more than 120 countries.

The decision also had domestic and international repercussions, triggering a wave of global warnings, writes € news, the Telegraph reports.

Development experts saw it as a significant obstacle to humanitarian efforts, especially in countries that rely heavily on US funding.

WTO in question: Delayed withdrawal or pressure tactic?

Despite his rapid withdrawals, Trump has yet to officially withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO), although he has repeatedly threatened to do so.

In several past statements, the US president expressed dissatisfaction with the structure of the organization, claiming that it favored other economic powers at the expense of the US.

In a 2018 interview with Fox News, Trump said: "If they don't improve, I'm going to withdraw from the WTO."

He repeated this threat in a later interview with Bloomberg, saying the organization was “created to benefit everyone else but the US.”

While no official decision has been made, observers believe the Trump administration could use the threat of withdrawal to reshape global trade rules according to its vision.

Otherwise, these withdrawals have sparked global debate, with some seeing them as a strategic shift to refocus on national interests, while others see them as a systematic disintegration of the US's leading role in the international system.

International experts have quickly raised the alarm about the potential consequences of these decisions, particularly for efforts to combat epidemics, human rights and development aid.

Amid these rapid changes, the most pressing question remains: Is the US reshaping its global role in line with Trump's vision, or will domestic and external pressures force a reassessment of these decisions? /Telegraph/