The Great Recalibration: United States Engagement with International Organizations in the Second Trump Era (2025)

26 Nov

Executive Strategic Assessment

The year 2025 has marked a definitive and structural break in the post-1945 international order, precipitated by the return of Donald J. Trump to the presidency of the United States. Unlike the first term (2017–2021), which was often characterized by rhetorical skepticism tempered by institutional inertia, the second administration has operationalized a doctrine of "Sovereign Transactionalism" with remarkable speed and bureaucratic efficiency. The collaboration between the United States and international organizations has not merely shifted; it has been fundamentally re-engineered to prioritize bilateral leverage over multilateral consensus, resulting in a systemic shock to global governance architectures ranging from security alliances to trade bodies and humanitarian agencies.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this transformation, drawing upon the executive orders, diplomatic summits, and policy shifts that defined the first eleven months of 2025. The analysis reveals a three-pronged strategy: Review and Withdraw, financial coercion, and institutional paralysis.

First, the administration has utilized the "180-day review" mechanism to subject every US treaty obligation and organizational membership to an "interests test," reversing the presumption of American participation.1 This has led to the initiation of withdrawals from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Agreement, and UNESCO, alongside a total cessation of engagement with the UN Human Rights Council.1

Second, the administration has replaced traditional alliance management with explicit financial ultimatums. This is most visible in the "The Hague Investment Plan," where NATO members were forced to accept a binding 5% of GDP defense spending target—a staggering increase from the previous 2% guideline—under the threat of US abandonment.3 This move effectively militarizes the European economy while decoupling it from guaranteed US security assurances.

Third, the administration has engaged in a deliberate paralysis of multilateral consensus-building forums. The failure of the G7 in Canada to produce a joint communiqué and the unprecedented US boycott of the G20 Summit in South Africa signal the end of the US role as the "convener-in-chief" of the global economy.4 Instead, Washington has pivoted to high-stakes bilateralism, exemplified by the "Reciprocal Trade and Fentanyl Control" deal with China, which traded tariff relief for domestic counternarcotics wins, bypassing the World Trade Organization (WTO) entirely.6

The cumulative effect of these policies is a fragmentation of the global order into a "G1" (the United States) acting on hyper-sovereign principles, and a "G19" or "Rest of World" scrambling to maintain functional cooperation in the vacuum of American leadership.

I. The Legal and Bureaucratic Machinery of Disengagement

The transformation of US foreign policy in 2025 was not improvised; it was executed through a series of precise legal instruments designed to dismantle the "administrative state" of international diplomacy. The administration viewed the web of multilateral commitments not as force multipliers, but as entanglements constraining American sovereignty.

The February 4 Executive Order: The "Interests" Test

The cornerstone of this new era was laid on February 4, 2025, when President Trump signed a sweeping executive order that mandated a comprehensive review of the entire US footprint in the multilateral system.1 This directive went far beyond the skeptical rhetoric of the campaign trail, establishing a bureaucratic mechanism to reassess the value proposition of every international engagement.

The order directed the Secretary of State to review "all international organizations" of which the United States is a member and "all conventions and treaties" to which it is a party.1 The review, to be completed within 180 days, was tasked with determining whether these commitments were "contrary to the interests of the United States" and whether the organizations in question could be "reformed".1 This effectively suspended the automaticity of US compliance with international law. For six months, the entire architecture of US diplomacy—involving thousands of treaties and hundreds of organizations—was placed in a state of provisional suspension, pending the outcome of this "interests test."

The immediate targets identified in the order were unsurprising but symbolically potent. It declared the immediate intent to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and to "reconsider" membership in UNESCO.1 Crucially, the order placed the burden of proof on the treaty or organization to demonstrate its utility to the specific, near-term interests of the United States, rather than the US needing to justify its departure.

Dismantling the Human Rights Architecture

The administration acted swiftly to sever ties with UN bodies focused on human rights, viewing them as vehicles for anti-American/anti-Israel bias and ideological imposition.

UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): The February 4 order mandated an immediate cessation of participation. The US delegation was withdrawn, and the administration announced it would not seek election to the body.7 Unlike the 2018 withdrawal, which was framed as a protest against specific biases, the 2025 withdrawal was codified as a rejection of the institution's legitimacy itself.
UNRWA (Palestinian Relief): The administration ceased all funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Executive Order provisions explicitly prohibited executive departments from using any funds for contributions, grants, or payments to the agency.7 This action blocked the payment of 2025 assessments and refused to cover prior arrears, effectively pushing the agency toward insolvency.7

These legal maneuvers demonstrated a centralization of foreign policy authority within the White House, bypassing Congressional appropriators by utilizing executive authority to freeze funds and "pause" treaty obligations under the guise of national security and fiscal review.

II. The Crisis of the Atlantic Alliance: NATO and European Security

The relationship between the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) underwent its most severe stress test in the alliance's 75-year history. The administration approached NATO not as a sacred bond of mutual defense, but as a service contract where the "client" states (Europe) were delinquent in their payments.

The Road to The Hague: Ultimatums and Brinkmanship

Leading up to the critical NATO Summit in The Hague in June 2025, the diplomatic atmosphere was toxic. President Trump publicly questioned the validity of Article 5 (the mutual defense clause), stating in the Oval Office that he would not defend allies who were "not paying enough".8 He framed this as "common sense," arguing that wealthy European nations were "fleecing" the United States by relying on American protection while maintaining robust social safety nets.8

This rhetoric was not merely for domestic consumption; it destabilized the strategic calculus of European capitals. Leaders from Berlin to Paris were forced to contend with the reality that the US security umbrella was no longer guaranteed. The administration made it clear that the previous standard—2% of GDP spent on defense—was obsolete and insufficient.8

The Hague Summit (June 2025): The 5% Threshold

The summit, held on June 24-25, 2025, resulted in the "The Hague Summit Declaration," a document that fundamentally altered the financial architecture of the alliance. Under intense pressure, NATO leaders agreed to the "Agreement on 5% Defence Spending by 2035," also known as the "The Hague Investment Plan".3

Structural Breakdown of the Commitment:

The Target: All 32 member states (with a singular exemption for Spain) committed to raising annual defense-related expenditures to 5% of GDP by 2035.3 This target represented a doubling of the previous Wales Summit pledge (2%) and a massive reallocation of European national budgets.
The "Two-Tier" Formula: To make the pill easier to swallow, the 5% was bifurcated:

3.5% of GDP strictly for "core" military expenditures (personnel, operations, equipment).3
1.5% of GDP for "security-related" spending, a broader category including cyberdefense, critical infrastructure protection, supply chain resilience, and defense innovation.3

Compliance Mechanisms: Allies were required to submit annual national roadmaps by mid-2026 showing a "credible, incremental path" to these targets, with a formal review scheduled for 2029.3

Analysis of the Outcome:

While NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte attempted to frame the agreement as a "transformational leap," and President Trump celebrated it as a "historic achievement" that saved the alliance from "irrelevance" 3, the deal was deeply asymmetric.

The United States extracted a massive financial commitment from Europe—estimated to require hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending annually—without offering commensurate guarantees in return.3 Specifically, Washington did not commit to maintaining its current troop levels in Europe, nor did it guarantee continued aid to Ukraine.11 The agreement essentially shifted the burden of deterrence onto European balance sheets while the US retained total strategic flexibility.

Troop Withdrawals and the Shrinking Footprint

Simultaneous with the demand for higher spending, the administration executed a tangible reduction of the US military footprint in Europe, reviving and expanding withdrawal plans from the first term.

Germany:

The administration re-initiated the withdrawal of 12,000 troops from Germany, a plan originally conceived in 2020 but halted by the Biden administration.12 The strategic logic provided was punitive: the President cited Germany's "delinquency" in defense spending and its energy trade with Russia as justifications for removing the security subsidy.8 The plan included relocating the US European Command (EUCOM) headquarters from Stuttgart, Germany, to Belgium, disrupting the logistical hub of NATO's eastern operations.15

Romania:

In a move that signaled a pivot away from the Black Sea region, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in November 2025 the removal of an infantry brigade (approximately 800 troops) from Romania.16 The unit was redeployed to its home base in Kentucky and was not replaced. This decision was interpreted by military analysts as a clear signal of the US "pivot away from Europe" to focus on the Indo-Pacific and domestic border security, leaving the Eastern Flank of NATO more vulnerable despite the raging conflict in Ukraine.16

The Ukraine Question

The administration’s disengagement from European security had profound implications for Ukraine. At The Hague Summit, Ukraine was relegated to a side event, and the final declaration offered no new substantive action on Russia.17 The administration’s focus was entirely on the financial metrics of the alliance, rather than its geopolitical mission. This strategic ambiguity forced European nations to accelerate their own defense industrial base expansion, acknowledging that they could no longer rely on the American arsenal for the defense of the continent.18

III. The Dismantling of the United Nations System

Beyond the security realm, the administration launched a comprehensive assault on the United Nations system, targeting agencies perceived as globalist, inefficient, or beholden to Chinese influence. The most significant of these actions was the renewed withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).

The World Health Organization (WHO) Withdrawal

On January 20, 2025, immediately after taking the oath of office, the President signed an executive order initiating the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO.2 This action revoked the Biden administration's 2021 reversal of the previous withdrawal, setting the US on a one-year path to exit the organization by January 2026.2

Rationale and Narrative:

The executive order justified the withdrawal on three grounds:

Pandemic Mismanagement: The order cited the WHO’s "mishandling" of the COVID-19 pandemic and its alleged complicity in covering up the origins of the virus in Wuhan.21
Financial Inequity: The administration highlighted a "gross disparity" in contributions, noting that the United States paid significantly more than China despite China's larger population.21
Lack of Independence: The WHO was accused of failing to demonstrate independence from "inappropriate political influence".21

Operational and Financial Impact:

The withdrawal had immediate and devastating financial consequences for the WHO. The US was the organization's largest single donor, contributing approximately 18% of the total budget and 22% of the assessed core budget.2 The executive order mandated an immediate "pause" on all future transfers of funds, creating a budget hole of over $1 billion for the 2025–2026 biennium.21

Humanitarian officials warned that this defunding would cripple operations in "places where others cannot go," such as Gaza, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Sudan.2 Furthermore, the US recalled all seconded personnel and withdrew from negotiations on the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Agreement, effectively ceding the shaping of future global health rules to other powers.19

UNESCO: The Second Departure

Paralleling the WHO decision, the administration announced on February 4, 2025, that the US would once again withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).1

Despite UNESCO's efforts to reform and the fact that US contributions (8% of the budget) had been stabilized by voluntary donations from other states, the administration viewed the agency as structurally biased and contrary to US interests.24 UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed "deep regret," noting that the withdrawal would harm US partners seeking World Heritage status and scientific cooperation.24 The decision underscored the administration's view that cultural diplomacy through multilateral forums was a low-value investment.

Rejection of the 2030 Agenda

The ideological rift with the UN extended to its development goals. In March 2025, the US delegation to the UN General Assembly formally rejected and denounced the "2030 Agenda" and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).19 During the vote, the US opposed resolutions referencing "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI), marking a formal programmatic break with the global development consensus. This action isolated the United States on issues ranging from climate adaptation to gender equality, positioning Washington as the primary antagonist to the UN's social agenda.

IV. Economic Warfare: The "America First" Trade Regime

The administration’s collaboration with international economic organizations was characterized by open hostility toward the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the aggressive use of unilateral tariffs to reshape global trade flows. The "America First Trade Policy," formalized on January 20, 2025, prioritized the reduction of trade deficits and the protection of domestic industry over adherence to global trade rules.26

The Tariff Wall: From Threat to Implementation

The administration utilized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass Congress and impose a sweeping tariff regime.

The April Emergency Declaration: On April 2, 2025, the President declared a national emergency regarding the "unusual and extraordinary threat" posed by large trade deficits.28 This legal maneuver allowed for the imposition of a "universal" 10% reciprocal tariff on imports from all countries not subject to other sanctions.29
Targeted Escalation: In addition to the baseline tariff, the administration imposed 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper, and threatened rates as high as 100-145% on specific goods from China.30
Economic Impact: By November 2025, the effective tariff rate on goods entering the US had risen by 14 percentage points year-over-year.32 While the Congressional Budget Office projected these tariffs would reduce federal deficits by $3 trillion over a decade, they also acknowledged the inflationary pressure on American consumers.32

The Domestic Backtrack: Agricultural Exemptions

The economic reality of the tariff war eventually forced a tactical retreat. Facing rising food prices and inflation, President Trump signed an Executive Order on November 14, 2025, modifying the scope of the reciprocal tariffs.33

Citing "substantial progress" in trade negotiations, the order exempted a wide range of agricultural products—including coffee, tea, bananas, spices, and fertilizers—from the 10% levy.35 This exemption revealed the political limits of the protectionist strategy: while the administration was willing to tax industrial goods, it could not sustain a tax on the American breakfast table.

The China Pivot: Transactional Detente

The most significant development in the trade arena was the shift from "decoupling" to "transactionalism" with China. After months of escalating threats and high tariffs, the two superpowers reached a stabilization deal in late 2025.

The "Reciprocal Trade and Fentanyl Control" Agreement (November 2025):

Following a summit between President Trump and President Xi Jinping in South Korea in October 2025, a deal was announced that linked trade relief directly to US domestic security priorities.6

US Concessions: The US reduced the "fentanyl-related" tariffs on Chinese imports by 10 percentage points and suspended the implementation of heightened reciprocal tariffs until November 2026. The cumulative reciprocal rate was capped at 10%.6
Chinese Concessions: China agreed to suspend its own retaliatory tariffs, remove export controls on critical rare earth minerals (gallium, germanium, antimony), and take "significant measures" to stop the flow of fentanyl precursors to the United States.6

This agreement epitomized the administration's "Sovereign Transactionalism." The US did not seek structural changes to the Chinese economy (as demanded by the WTO or previous administrations regarding state-owned enterprises) but instead traded market access for specific, tangible deliverables: fentanyl control and rare earth supply.

The Irrelevance of the WTO

Throughout 2025, the US continued to engage with the WTO only to obstruct it. The administration maintained the blockade on appointing judges to the Appellate Body, ensuring that the dispute settlement mechanism remained paralyzed.37 When challenged on its tariff policies, the US invoked the "essential security exception" (GATT Article XXI), effectively declaring that its trade measures were non-justiciable matters of national security.37

V. The Collapse of Multilateral Consensus: G7 and G20

The year 2025 witnessed the spectacular breakdown of the G7 and G20 as functional steering committees for the global economy. The United States, formerly the "indispensable nation" in these forums, became the "absent power."

The G7 Summit in Kananaskis (June 2025)

The 51st G7 Summit, hosted by Canada in Kananaskis, Alberta, became a symbol of the fractured West. Tensions between the Trump administration and other G7 leaders (specifically Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and European heads of state) resulted in a diplomatic disaster.4

The Walkout: President Trump departed the summit early, skipping final sessions to return to Washington.4
The Communiqué Failure: For the first time in the group's history, the G7 failed to release a joint communiqué. The "deepening policy divisions" on climate, trade, and Ukraine made a consensus document impossible.4
Diplomatic Snubs: The President refused to hold bilateral meetings with the Ukrainian President or the Mexican President, both of whom were invited guests, signaling a disinterest in coordinating policy with key partners.4

While Canada attempted to salvage the presidency through ministerial meetings later in the year—focusing on technical issues like cybercrime and synthetic drugs 39—the political unity of the G7 was effectively shattered.

The G20 Johannesburg Boycott (November 2025)

The diplomatic rupture deepened at the G20 Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. In a move without modern precedent, the United States boycotted the summit entirely.5

The Pretext: President Trump refused to attend, citing unsubstantiated claims that the South African government was "violently persecuting" white Afrikaner farmers. He described the venue as hostile to American values.41
The Diplomatic Insult: The White House initially proposed sending a low-level embassy official to the summit merely to accept the rotating presidency gavel for 2026. The South African government rejected this proposal as a diplomatic insult.5
The "Empty Chair": Consequently, no US delegation was accredited. The summit proceeded with an empty seat for the world's largest economy. In the closing ceremony, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa symbolically handed the gavel to the "next president... the United States" with no American present to receive it.5
The "G19" Declaration: Despite the US absence, the remaining members adopted a declaration focused on climate action, debt relief, and global inequality—an agenda the US explicitly opposed.44

The boycott marked a watershed moment. It signaled that the US was willing to vacate the table rather than compromise, creating a vacuum that other powers, including China (represented by its Premier), were eager to fill.

VI. Environmental and Health Sovereignty

The administration’s approach to global environmental frameworks was consistent with its broader sovereignty doctrine: total withdrawal and deregulation.

The Paris Agreement Withdrawal

On January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14162 directed the US Ambassador to the UN to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement for a second time.45 The order mandated the cessation of all financial commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and required US foreign energy engagements to prioritize "economic efficiency" and "fiscal restraint".45 This move effectively removed the world's second-largest emitter from the global climate accounting system.

The Kigali Amendment Reversal

The administration also targeted the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which regulates hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Policy Shift: Reversing the Biden administration’s ratification, the Trump administration moved to loosen restrictions on HFCs.47
Economic Rationale: Conservative advisors argued that the phase-out of HFCs imposed unnecessary costs on American families (via higher air conditioning prices) and offered "little benefit" to the climate.48 This move signaled a retreat from even the most successful and technocratic environmental regimes, prioritizing short-term consumer costs over long-term environmental regulation.

VII. Geopolitical Implications and Future Outlook

By the end of 2025, the collaboration between the United States and international organizations had been radically transformed. The "Sovereign Transactionalism" doctrine has replaced the post-WWII model of stewardship with a system of bilateral coercion and institutional disengagement.

1. The Rise of the "G19":

The US boycott of the G20 and obstruction at the G7 has accelerated the formation of a "G19"—a coalition of the rest of the world that continues to operate multilateral machinery without the US. While this group lacks the power of the US, it is increasingly aligning on standards for climate, digital governance, and development, leaving the US isolated from the rule-making process.

2. The Militarization of Europe:

The "The Hague Investment Plan" (5% GDP spending) has forced Europe to prioritize defense spending over social welfare, potentially leading to political instability within European democracies. Simultaneously, the lack of a US security guarantee has pushed Europe to develop autonomous defense capabilities, slowly eroding the transatlantic bond that has been the bedrock of Western security.

3. The China Opportunity:

The US withdrawal from WHO, UNESCO, and the G20 has created a massive strategic opening for China. By maintaining its presence and funding (even if modest compared to the US), Beijing has positioned itself as the defender of the multilateral system, winning influence in the Global South while the US retreats.

4. The Fragility of Bilateralism:

The US strategy relies entirely on the strength of bilateral deals (like the China Fentanyl/Trade deal). While these deals can deliver quick wins, they lack the durability of treaties. If the US reimposes tariffs or if China reneges on fentanyl controls, there is no dispute settlement mechanism to mediate—only a return to economic warfare.

In conclusion, the United States in 2025 has not merely retreated into isolationism; it has actively engaged in the deconstruction of the multilateral architecture. It engages only where it can extract direct, immediate concessions, and absents itself where consensus requires compromise, leaving the international system more fragmented, volatile, and transactional than at any point since 1945.

Data Appendices

Table 1: 2025 US International Engagement Status

Organization / Treaty

Action Taken

Status (Nov 2025)

Financial Impact

Citation

World Health Organization (WHO)

Withdrawal Initiated (Jan 20)

Exit pending (Jan 2026)

Funding Paused ($1.2B impact)

Paris Climate Agreement

Withdrawal Initiated (Jan 20)

Process Active

Funding Ceased

UNESCO

Withdrawal Initiated (Feb 4)

Exit pending (Dec 2026)

US contribution (8%) ends

UN Human Rights Council

Immediate Withdrawal

Non-member

Funding prohibited

UNRWA

Funding Cut

Member (Nominal)

$0 funding

NATO

Renegotiation

Member

Demanded 5% GDP Spending

Diplomatic Downgrade

Member

No Joint Communiqué (2025)

G20

Boycott

Member (Presidency 2026)

Absent from 2025 Summit

Table 2: NATO "The Hague Investment Plan" (2025)

Spending Category

Target (% of GDP)

Focus Areas

Compliance Deadline

Citation

Core Defense

3.5%

Personnel, Equipment, Operations

2035 (Review 2029)

Security-Related

1.5%

Cyber, Infrastructure, Resilience

2035

Total Commitment

5.0%

Total Security Architecture