On January 7, 2026, the United States announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties deemed by the administration to be "contrary to the interests of the United States". These included 31 UN entities and 35 on-UN organizations. Why did the US withdraw, and does this move truly serve its national interest?

The withdrawal follows the blueprint declared in the Project 2025 agenda, which mandates that all US multilateral engagements be reevaluated. The agenda explicitly states that initiatives promoting "controversial policies" must be halted and that the US must treat international organizations solely as vehicles for promoting American interests or otherwise extract itself from them.

According to this framework, the US should focus its international engagement on specific goals: restoring national sovereignty, eliminating waste and inefficiency, and rejecting ideological agendas. The pursuit of sovereignty aims to maximize US power by increasing freedom of action and rejecting the authority of international bodies. The focus on efficiency reflects a belief that these organizations misuse funds, justifying the termination of all financial support. Finally, the rejection of ideological agendas targets support for environmental, climate change, and expansive human rights initiatives, such as gender equity and reproductive health, which are argued to undermine US influence, sovereignty, and economic strength. 

The organizations targeted fall into three general categories: 22 relate to environmental issues, 10 to human rights, and the remainder to trade and development. This retreat highlights a desire to disengage from multilateral cooperation across Asia, Africa, and Europe, signaling a return to a modern variant of isolationism characterized by "America First" economic nationalism, and unilateralism. On a policy level, this marks a definitive shift toward bilateralism, where the US can maximize its leverage.

Proponents argue that bilateralism (or agreements between just two countries) yields significant benefits because the sheer size of the US economy and its diplomatic weight provide maximum leverage. Bilateralism is direct, fast, and narrow in scope. Because the US has the upper hand in most of those relationships, it can dictate terms that yield high immediate returns and exert direct influence over other countries. The trade posture assumed by the current administration on "Liberation Day" reflects this outlook, which has been applied successfully in many cases.

However, we must ask what is lost when we diminish our participation in the multilateral system. While multilateral accords are slow to implement and U.S. influence can be diffused among many voices, they achieve a level of legitimacy and confidence that bilateral deals cannot match, because so many countries buy into them. This makes US leadership in the international system easier and more attractive.

For example, the creation of the United Nations established a framework of universal equality and the renunciation of offensive war that has helped maintain a relatively long-term peace since 1945. It did not stop all wars, but labeling war-making as a crime against peace has reduced them to single-digit occurrences, unlike the period before 1945. In other words, multilateral institutions in the international system reduce the cost of business for everyone, including the US.

Additionally, the US withdrawal from those bodies creates a power vacuum that competitors are eager to fill. When the US vacates its seat at the table in organizations like the World Health Organization, it does not dissolve those institutions; it simply hands the gavel to adversaries like China. These nations are more than willing to rewrite global standards, on everything from digital privacy to maritime law, in ways that systematically disadvantage US values, businesses and security.

Why should this matter to Kentuckians? 

As mentioned in this column before, Kentucky is a large exporter of bourbon and soybeans. When the US moves from multilateral deals to "America First" bilateralism, other countries can retaliate with tariffs. Or if the US decides to leave the World Trade Organization (WTO), there would be no "referee" to stop Europe or China from taxing Kentucky products into oblivion. Kentucky is also a large exporter of goods, all of which are integrated into global supply chains. Any significant disruption to them would have a significant impact on the Kentucky economy. In other words, for a Kentuckian, “freedom of action” in Washington sounds good until it results in a 25% tariff on a bottle of Bourbon in London or a bushel of soy in Shanghai.

Ultimately, withdrawing from these institutions for the sake of "freedom of action" is a tactical victory but a strategic surrender. It trades the enduring power of setting global rules for the fleeting satisfaction of a win. Without the predictability of a multilateral framework, the US may find itself with more "freedom" to act, but with far fewer partners willing to follow, leaving it to navigate a more chaotic and hostile world alone.

Jose E. Mora, PhD, is a former Professor and Chair of Global Affairs of the American University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Mora and his wife, Melissa, recently moved to Berea in order to be closer to their four adult children who also live here.