A Decisive Retreat: The U.S. Exit from 66 International Bodies

Welcome to a neural newscast. I am Martin Caldwell. And I am Ayanna Brooks. Today we are looking at, well, it is a really profound restructuring of the United States role on the world stage. President Trump has signed an executive order directing the U.S. to withdraw from 66 international organizations as soon as possible. It is an unprecedented move in terms of scope, Ayana. I mean, we are looking at a unprecedented move in terms of scope. I mean, we are looking at a retreat from multilateralism that spans climate change, human rights, counter-terrorism, and even maritime safety. The order targets 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN organizations. Right. The sheer breadth is what stands out. When you look at the list, these aren't just obscure panels. We are talking about the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is, you know, the gold standard for climate science globally. It is a complete decoupling from the international community's joint efforts to monitor the health of our planet. Yeah, and the list continues into the social and human rights sectors. One of the most prominent exits is from UN Women, the primary body dedicated to gender equality. The order also terminates participation in the UN Population Fund, which focuses on reproductive health and demographics. Ayanna, as someone who follows social justice so closely, I mean, how does this list read to you? Honestly, Martin, it reads like a systemic dismantling of protections for the vulnerable. Beyond UN women, the U.S. is leaving the office of the Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict and the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent. These organizations provide a voice and a framework for justice where local governments might fail. Removing U.S. support and funding doesn't just silence an American perspective. It potentially... it potentially destabilizes the funding models that keep these protections alive. Mm-hmm. It also touches on security and technical cooperation. The administration is pulling out of the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships in Asia, as well as the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine, which was, I mean, it was originally designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. It seems no stone was left unturned. Even the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which advises on constitutional matters and the rule of law, is on the list. Martin, why is the administration making such a sweeping exit now? The explanation from the State Department is quite direct. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that many of these institutions are working on agendas that are contrary to the interests of the United States. He specifically pointed toward organizations focused on a climate, labor, and migration." And there is a specific rhetorical framing here, right? I mean, they are labeling many of these programs as woke. Correct. The administration has used that term to characterize agencies dealing with social policy and migration. By cutting ties, they argue they are protecting American sovereignty and ensuring that taxpayer dollars aren't funding ideologies they disagree with. It is an extension of the America First doctrine, but taken to a scale we haven't seen before. But at what cost to American influence? When we leave a body like the International Renewable Energy Agency or the Global Counterterrorism Forum, we aren't just saving money. We are leaving an empty chair at the table where international standards are actually set. That is the central debate. Proponents of the move say that if the organizations aren't serving American interests, there is no reason to be there. But critics, and many longtime diplomats, argue that this creates a power vacuum. If the United States isn't in the room to shape the conversation on things like trade and development, other nations, most notably China, are more than happy to fill that void. Totally. And we should also note that this isn't happening in a vacuum. This follows previous decisions to exit the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. This latest order just seems to be the final massive push to clear the ledger of international commitments. It is consistent with the administration's broader fiscal strategy as well. Last year, we saw deep cuts to USAID, which already forced many international aid programs to scale back or shut down entirely. This executive order essentially codifies that withdrawal on a permanent basis. I can't help but think about the human impact of these specific names on the list. The UN Human Settlements Program, or UN Habitat, works on sustainable urban development and housing in some of the most impoverished regions. When the U.S. walks away, the message it sends to the global south is that, well, we are no longer interested in these shared challenges. It is a fundamental shift in the American identity abroad, from being the primary architect of the post-war international order to a nation that is systematically opting out of it. It remains to be seen how the remaining members of these 66 organizations will adapt to a world without American participation. The landscape of global diplomacy just became much more fractured. Thank you for joining us for this deep dive. We will continue to follow the fallout from this executive order as departments begin the formal withdrawal process. I am Martin Caldwell. And I am Ayana Brooks. Thank you for listening. Neural Newscast is AI-assisted, human-reviewed. View our AI transparency policy at neuralnewscast.com.