America First, Reasserted: Trump’s Strategic Break from Global Bureaucracy -

By Junaid Qaiser
President Donald J. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations has understandably stirred up a lot of outrage in Western policy circles. Critics are quick to label this move as isolationist and destabilizing. Yet, such responses often miss the bigger picture behind the decision. What Washington is doing isn’t stepping back from the world; it’s a strategic shift in how it chooses to engage.
At its essence, the Executive Order signed on January 7, 2026, reinforces the “America First” doctrine, which emphasizes domestic accountability over international appearances. For decades, the U.S. has been carrying the financial and political burden of extensive global institutions that promised collective solutions but frequently led to bureaucratic stagnation. While Washington has been paying the bills, the results have often been frustratingly out of reach, politicized, or biased.
Trump’s latest move is just a continuation of a pattern he established during his first term, when the U.S. withdrew from agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the UN Human Rights Council. Those exits were met with significant criticism, but they also highlighted some uncomfortable realities: many international organizations have strayed from their neutral roles, becoming more about ideological agendas than actual problem-solving. This new round of withdrawals simply extends that reasoning after a thorough policy review.
From the perspective of Pakistan, this decision resonates more than Western critics might want to acknowledge. Pakistan has often seen how international forums, particularly within the UN, can be selective in their application of principles—loud about some conflicts while remaining silent on others. Institutions that are meant to uphold universal standards frequently fall victim to power politics, donor influence, and narrative control. Trump’s break from this system reflects a recognition that sovereignty shouldn’t be surrendered to unelected international bureaucracies.
A key reason behind the withdrawals is grounded in economic realism. For years, the United States has been the biggest financial backer of many international organizations, pouring money into various agencies that often have overlapping goals related to development, climate, migration, and governance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s straightforward remark—that American resources were being spent with “little to nothing to show for it”—reflects a common frustration among taxpayers, not just in the U.S. but also in developing nations. Choosing to redirect these funds toward domestic needs is a political decision that prioritizes accountability to voters over seeking international approval.
Equally important is the ideological aspect. Several organizations from which the U.S. has withdrawn are increasingly advocating for policy frameworks on climate, gender, population, and social governance that are hotly debated within American society. By continuing to finance these agendas internationally, Washington was, in effect, endorsing policies abroad that lacked a democratic consensus back home. Trump’s decision clearly states: American policy will be crafted in Washington, not in Geneva or New York..
It’s crucial to understand that this doesn’t mean a total abandonment of multilateralism. The U.S. continues to engage with institutions that are considered essential for global security and humanitarian stability, like the UN Security Council, the World Food Programme, and the UN Refugee Agency. The key takeaway here is selective engagement—being involved where it truly matters and pulling back when institutions seem to serve their own interests.
For Pakistan and other developing nations, this has two significant implications. First, Trump’s actions highlight the fact that powerful countries often put their national interests ahead of loyalty to international institutions. Second, it could push for much-needed reforms in international organizations that have become too comfortable with the steady flow of Western funding. If major donors start demanding accountability and tangible results, we might finally see these organizations address their credibility issues.
At its core, “America First, Reasserted” isn’t just about American nationalism; it’s really about having a clear strategy. Trump has opted for leverage instead of mere symbolism, focusing on real outcomes rather than just appearances. Whether you agree with this approach or not, it highlights a tough reality in international politics: global cooperation only thrives when it aligns with the interests of individual nations. Without that solid base, we end up with bureaucracy taking the place of true leadership—and honestly, no country, whether strong or weak, gains anything from that.
In a world that’s becoming more doubtful of lofty promises and institutional overreach, Washington’s message is crystal clear. Engagement will keep happening, but it will be on terms based on nation’s national interests first.