US Departure From UN Organizations: The Ripple Effect On Global Stability – OpEd

President Trump 2.0 has made a historical change in world politics that will have significant implications for foreign aid, peace and security, and diplomatic relationships.  This unprecedented decision is a clear trend toward unilateralism and isolation which may lead to the deterioration of the global structure. The UN was founded in 1945 to promote the idea of international cooperation and has played a vital role in the preservation of peace provision of humanitarian assistance, and solution of international crises. The US. departure from the World Health Organization (WHO) the United Nations Human Rights Council  (UNHRC) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a blow to these efforts. This paper concludes that Trump’s decision to exit these three agencies is a threat to global security, undermines global humanitarian assistance, and leaves a power void that other nations may exploit. 

President Trump on 4 February 2025 signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the  United Nations Human Rights Council and from the U.N. entity that handles Palestinian refugees and the World Health  Organization. The U.S. has always been one of the biggest financial supporters of these agencies. For instance, as of 2024 the WHO got most of its funding from the U.S. and was therefore able to finance many important projects such as vaccination programs fighting diseases and medical care in areas of conflict. This means that with this support these programs are likely to be short of cash and thus there be will more cases of disease outbreaks and death that could have prevented been. 

The first consequence of the United States’ exit from the WHO is the potential disruption of the organization’s global health programs. The WHO has been involved in fighting the COVID-19  pandemic the Ebola outbreak and the fight against malaria. The absence of United States funding may severely limit vaccination programs medical assistance, and disease control measures that may affect millions of people. Moreover, the choice of exiting the  UNHRC is a concern regarding the promotion of human rights all over the world. The UNHRC has its share of problems but it has a place where countries can be called to account for human rights violations. The protection of human rights may be weakened globally as the  U. S. is not involved in the body that protects human rights. 

Trump’s decision to leave  UNRWA the body that aids Palestinian refugees, will only add to the suffering of the Middle East region. In 2023 the U.S. allocated $340 million to UNRWA which provided food education, and health care to more than 5 . 9 million Palestinian refugees. The sudden cut of this funding may worsen poverty and lead to conflict in the region thereby increasing tension between Israel and Palestine. The absence of U.S . support may also force UNRWA to go for other funding sources which may not be enough to meet the increasing needs. 

Apart from that  Trump’s decision is a threat to the security of the international system.  The WHO is an organization that assists in disease control and the spread and coordination of an outbreak such as COVID-19 and Ebola. The absence of U. S. support may slow down the international response efforts and hence the diseases may continue to spread.  Furthermore, the exits create a power vacuum that other global powers especially China and Russia, can exploit. Over the last 10 years, China has been increasing its role in these UN agencies by enhancing its support for global health and diplomacy. In 2024, China was the third largest contributor to the WHO and has increased its role in the UNHRC  a body that protects human rights. The new American administration has created an opportunity for China to further consolidate its power within institutions and to shape policies to align with its national agenda. Likewise, Russia which has always used its seat on the UN to challenge the West may have a more significant role in global governance which may dilute the global response to crises and conflicts. 

Domestically,  Trump has come under a of lot pressure lately. His supporters have indicated that leaving these UN agencies is a good move as it will help the country reduce its spending and increase sovereignty. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 67% Americans are of against the withdrawal from the WHO because of concerns about global health protection and international relations.  Businesses that rely on global stability may be adversely affected by the disengagement from multilateral institutions, as this leads to increased geopolitical risks and trade uncertainties. Moreover, other partners including the European Union, Japan, and Canada have expressed concerns that the U.S. departure is a setback to the global effort to fight diseases, protect human rights, and address humanitarian crises. 

However, the decision also has legal and procedural implications. While the president has the authority to withdraw from international treaties, leaving the WHO and UNHRC is quite uncommon. According to experts, such a step requires the congress’ approval and there may be legal proceedings that slow down or prevent the process. Also, disengagement with these agencies may be detrimental to the position of the United States in setting global health policies and human rights standards.

Finally, Trump  2. 0’s decision to have the United States exit the WHO, UNHRC, and UNRWA  has a global impact on security aid and geopolitics. The absence of  United States funding can threaten health programs, weaken human rights protection, and increase the suffering of the population in the Middle  East. At the domestic level, the decision is unpopular, and legal barriers be may difficult to overcome making the implementation process more complicated. Critics have argued that the policy is consistent with the ‘First America’ policy however, the overall effects seem suggest to a decline in global leadership that prove may to be detrimental not only to the United t States but to the entire world as well. If the decision is not reversed or modified, it may lead to a rewriting of the system’s rules in a manner that undermines stability, cooperation, and progress across many significant areas.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

References

• Wright, Thomas. (2024). The Retreat of American Leadership: How U.S. Withdrawal is Reshaping Global Order. Oxford University Press.
• Haass, Richard. (2023). The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Penguin Press.
• Patrick, Stewart. (2023). The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World. Brookings Institution Press.