Expert: U.S. withdrawal from 66 intl organizations signals retreat from global values

The U.S. decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations signals an explicit retreat from values centered on intergenerational responsibility, social inclusion and global solidarity, an expert said on Thursday.

The White House stated ton Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum directing his country's withdrawal from 66 international organizations, which "no longer serve American interests."

The list includes 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN organizations. Most are UN-related agencies, commissions and advisory bodies focusing on climate change, global governance, labor and other areas that the Trump administration has labeled as promoting diversity and a so-called "woke" agenda.

CGTN spoke with Sun Taiyi, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States, to gain his insights. The conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and conciseness. 

CGTN: From the perspective of global governance, what are the main impacts of the U.S. move this time?

Sun: From a global governance perspective, the U.S. decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations is, at its core, a move driven by domestic political calculations – particularly the need to appease the MAGA base – rather than a carefully calibrated reassessment of global responsibilities.

Notably, many of the affected institutions are concentrated in areas such as climate change, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as social protection and humanitarian assistance. In the view of the American right, some of these activities represent public goods that should not be financed by U.S. taxpayers, while others are seen as initiatives that allegedly disadvantage white male constituencies at home.

At the global level, the consequences unfold along two critical dimensions: resources and norms. Financially, the immediate impact is a growing shortage of funding for programs that support vulnerable populations, marginalized communities and long-term sustainability initiatives – precisely those areas that rely most heavily on stable multilateral financing.

More significantly, the normative impact may be longer lasting. The U.S. withdrawal signals an explicit retreat from values centered on intergenerational responsibility, social inclusion and global solidarity. By normalizing resistance to protecting the vulnerable and investing in future generations, the United States risks reshaping global governance norms in ways that extend far beyond budgetary shortfalls.

CGTN: With the U.S. withdrawal, will there be a "gap" in global governance?

Sun: Temporary gaps in global governance are inevitable following a U.S. withdrawal of this magnitude. However, such vacuums are unlikely to remain unfilled for long. Historically, when a dominant provider of global public goods retreats, other responsible major countries and institutional actors gradually step in to assume those functions.

The areas most affected in the short term will be climate governance, social inclusion and minority empowerment – domains where the U.S. funding and agenda-setting previously played an outsized role.

That said, this moment does not necessarily call for the creation of entirely new multilateral mechanisms. Rather, what is required is the replacement of the U.S. role within existing institutional frameworks. This is where the concept of order-succession rise becomes analytically useful: instead of overthrowing or bypassing established institutions, emerging actors incrementally take over responsibilities abandoned by the former leader, preserving institutional continuity while altering the distribution of leadership.

In this sense, global governance is experiencing a process of functional succession within the same multilateral architecture.

CGTN: Can global initiatives, such as those proposed by China, play a greater complementary role in multilateral cooperation?

Sun: Yes, global initiatives – particularly those advanced by China – can and are likely to play a more substantial complementary role in the current international environment. At a time when the United States is actively promoting de-globalization and domestic populism, these initiatives are rooted in a deep historical reflection on the catastrophic lessons of the two World Wars.

They emphasize principles such as sovereign equality, respect for international law, multilateralism, people-centered development and practical effectiveness.

Rather than dismantling the existing global governance system, these initiatives seek to anchor reform within current institutions, offering clear directions, guiding principles and implementation pathways for improving governance capacity.

By reaffirming multilateral cooperation and prioritizing tangible outcomes, they aim to sustain collective action in areas where U.S. disengagement has created uncertainty – most notably climate change, sustainable development and global public health. In this way, such initiatives contribute to the long-term goal of building a community with a shared future for humanity while reinforcing, rather than replacing, multilateral cooperation.

CGTN: What long-term changes in U.S. foreign policy are reflected in this series of withdrawals? What long-term changes will it bring to the global strategic landscape?

Sun: These withdrawals reflect a deeper structural shift in U.S. foreign policy. Externally, the United States is increasingly embracing a form of "jungle logic" – prioritizing raw power, transactionalism and unilateral advantage over rule-based cooperation. Internally, foreign policy has become more heavily driven by partisan politics, with domestic ideological battles increasingly projected onto the international arena.

While policy oscillation between Democratic and Republican administrations will likely continue – and future Democratic governments may attempt to correct or reverse some of these actions – the broader reputational damage is cumulative. Over time, the United States is increasingly perceived as an unreliable and inconsistent actor, undermining confidence in its long-term commitments.

Strategically, this trend accelerates the fragmentation and multi-polarization of the global order. As U.S. credibility erodes, other actors gain both the opportunity and the necessity to assume greater responsibility. The result may not be an immediate power transition, but a more divided, decentralized, and pluralistic international system – one in which leadership is shared, contested, and increasingly shaped by processes of order succession rather than hegemonic stability.