Key Takeaways:
- The United States is withdrawing from 66 international organizations, which will lead to a significant loss of influence and leadership in global affairs.
- China is likely to fill the space left by the US and shape international institutions to reflect its own interests.
- The withdrawal will harm US businesses, particularly those in the clean energy sector, and disadvantage US interests in international rulemaking.
- The US is abandoning its network of allies and friends in international organizations, which will make it harder to advance its interests and compete with China.
- The withdrawal will have long-term consequences for US national security and global influence.
Introduction to the Issue
When diplomats join the American delegation to the United Nations for the first time, they receive extensive instructions on how to negotiate with foreign counterparts. Among the most important is this: Don’t ever leave the U.S. chair empty. This admonition is rooted in history, as seen in 1950 when the Soviet Union boycotted the U.N. Security Council, allowing the United States to authorize a U.N. mission to repel the North Korean attack. However, despite this lesson, President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will withdraw from 66 international organizations, effectively half from the U.N. system and half from other multilateral bodies.
Consequences of Withdrawal
The consequences of this withdrawal are likely to unfold quickly. Other voices, far less aligned with the traditional U.S. view of the world, will fill the space. China, in particular, will be happy to do so, as it has spent years attempting to reshape the mandates, staffing, and norms of international institutions to reflect its own political model. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the International Solar Alliance are two examples where China will gain significant influence without U.S. input. This will not only harm U.S. businesses but also disadvantage U.S. interests in international rulemaking.
Impact on US Businesses and Interests
The withdrawal will cripple the very tools Washington relies on to advance its interests. International institutions are marketplaces for influence, where states trade support, negotiate compromises, and shape the diplomatic environment. By walking away, the United States forfeits its ability to define terms, block harmful initiatives, and build coalitions that produce outcomes it prefers. The International Law Commission, which has laid the legal groundwork for many important treaties, is one example where disengagement will clearly harm U.S. interests. Withdrawing from U.N. offices that promote longstanding U.S. foreign policy positions, such as the Freedom Online Coalition and the Global Counterterrorism Forum, will also have negative consequences.
Competition with China
The United States’s competition with China occurs not just on a bilateral basis but in lesser-known international settings every day. A core advantage of American statecraft has always been its network: allies who exchange political and technical information, align votes, co-enforce norms, and lend legitimacy to American initiatives. Beijing understands this power and spends an extraordinary amount of time courting countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean. Many of the 66 bodies the United States is exiting are precisely where those often highly technical relationships and exchanges are maintained. By vacating these institutions, the United States is abandoning its network of allies and friends, making it harder to advance its interests and compete with China.
Need for Reform and Engagement
While there is redundancy and inefficiency within the multilateral system, the United States needs to remain involved and seek reform from within. Superpowers can’t afford to take an entirely a la carte approach to international systems. Prioritization is critical, but disengagement is something else entirely. The United States needs to stay active in many settings because it is difficult to know when action in one body that appears inconsequential will have a meaningful impact on a core national security interest elsewhere. Whatever the modest cost-savings that are generated by this U.S. withdrawal, the loss of long-term influence will be far greater.
Conclusion
The United States has always had the ability to shape international institutions, even when doing so required patience, persistence, or open conflict with other major powers. In moments of frustration, previous U.S. administrations fought within the system, rather than walking away, because they understood that the only thing worse than an imperfect institution is one in which your competitors write the rules unopposed. The current withdrawal from 66 international organizations is a significant mistake that will have long-term consequences for U.S. national security and global influence. The United States needs to reconsider its approach and remain engaged in international institutions to advance its interests and compete with China.