America First in Action: Trump Slashes Ties with UN Agencies

Paul Riverbank, 1/9/2026Trump axes US from 66 UN agencies, championing “America First” amid fierce debate on global responsibility.

The administration frames this as a pragmatic turn, folded squarely into its “America First” agenda. The central argument is disarmingly direct: Involvement in these organizations, officials say, ties up American money and priorities in foreign projects that don’t necessarily benefit U.S. citizens. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it bluntly—calling the targeted groups “redundant” and “wasteful,” even going as far as to say they threaten American sovereignty. According to the White House, money funneled into global bodies could instead be building bridges, funding military readiness, or reinforcing the U.S. southern border.

But the deeper story isn’t just about line items in a budget. It gets into the weeds of American identity and global responsibility. Take the U.N. Population Fund—one organization named in the departure. Critics of the group, including President Trump, have accused it of supporting “coercive abortion practices” abroad, notably in China. Defenders respond that the fund delivers crucial reproductive health services in places that desperately need them.

There’s a real sense of deja vu here. At the turn of the 20th century, Americans like Mark Twain were already pushing back against what they saw as a growing imperial streak. Twain’s sardonic commentary—“We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem”—stung precisely because it forced Americans to consider the gap between their idealism and their actions.

Fast-forward to today, and there’s a notable change in rhetoric. The Trump White House isn’t speaking in the language of idealism. Officials have dispensed with invoking the spread of democracy or global uplift. Sometimes, the language is almost combative. The State Department recently used the hashtag “THIS IS OUR HEMISPHERE,” and lawmakers such as Representative Andy Ogles have spoken openly about American dominance, calling the U.S. the “predator force” in the Western Hemisphere.

For supporters of the administration, this isn’t imperialism—it’s common sense. There’s an undercurrent of “let’s take care of our own” that resonates with those who feel global engagement too often leaves American communities shortchanged. Infrastructure, military, border security—these tangible issues carry real weight with voters who watch factories close or highways crumble while overseas memberships continue.

On the other side, critics warn of tangible losses. Groups focused on climate, migration, labor, public health—these are arenas where, in their view, collective action is not just beneficial, but essential. People like climate scientist Rob Jackson at Stanford caution that the American withdrawal offers other nations an easy excuse to temper their own commitments, potentially stalling progress on climate and public health. “If the U.S. pulls back, some will wonder why they shouldn’t do the same,” Jackson commented.

So, is this a reset back to isolation, or simply a forthright assertion of national interest? The answer hinges on what you believe the United States owes—if anything—to the world beyond its borders. In the absence of American involvement, it’s an open question whether other countries will pick up the slack on critical issues that spill across boundaries.

For now, at least, Washington’s answer is unmistakably clear. It’s a pivot away from international forums, a tilt toward domestic priorities, and a confession that, when forced to choose, “America First” means just that—even if the rest of the world isn’t coming along.

If you’ve followed U.S. foreign policy over the decades, you know the country’s relationship with international organizations has always been a moving target. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that brought this into stark relief, directing the United States to pull out of sixty-six global groups—many of which run through the United Nations. For some, this move feels sudden; for others, it’s another chapter in a longer American story.The administration frames this as a pragmatic turn, folded squarely into its “America First” agenda. The central argument is disarmingly direct: Involvement in these organizations, officials say, ties up American money and priorities in foreign projects that don’t necessarily benefit U.S. citizens. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it bluntly—calling the targeted groups “redundant” and “wasteful,” even going as far as to say they threaten American sovereignty. According to the White House, money funneled into global bodies could instead be building bridges, funding military readiness, or reinforcing the U.S. southern border.But the deeper story isn’t just about line items in a budget. It gets into the weeds of American identity and global responsibility. Take the U.N. Population Fund—one organization named in the departure. Critics of the group, including President Trump, have accused it of supporting “coercive abortion practices” abroad, notably in China. Defenders respond that the fund delivers crucial reproductive health services in places that desperately need them.There’s a real sense of deja vu here. At the turn of the 20th century, Americans like Mark Twain were already pushing back against what they saw as a growing imperial streak. Twain’s sardonic commentary—“We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem”—stung precisely because it forced Americans to consider the gap between their idealism and their actions.Fast-forward to today, and there’s a notable change in rhetoric. The Trump White House isn’t speaking in the language of idealism. Officials have dispensed with invoking the spread of democracy or global uplift. Sometimes, the language is almost combative. The State Department recently used the hashtag “THIS IS OUR HEMISPHERE,” and lawmakers such as Representative Andy Ogles have spoken openly about American dominance, calling the U.S. the “predator force” in the Western Hemisphere.For supporters of the administration, this isn’t imperialism—it’s common sense. There’s an undercurrent of “let’s take care of our own” that resonates with those who feel global engagement too often leaves American communities shortchanged. Infrastructure, military, border security—these tangible issues carry real weight with voters who watch factories close or highways crumble while overseas memberships continue.On the other side, critics warn of tangible losses. Groups focused on climate, migration, labor, public health—these are arenas where, in their view, collective action is not just beneficial, but essential. People like climate scientist Rob Jackson at Stanford caution that the American withdrawal offers other nations an easy excuse to temper their own commitments, potentially stalling progress on climate and public health. “If the U.S. pulls back, some will wonder why they shouldn’t do the same,” Jackson commented.So, is this a reset back to isolation, or simply a forthright assertion of national interest? The answer hinges on what you believe the United States owes—if anything—to the world beyond its borders. In the absence of American involvement, it’s an open question whether other countries will pick up the slack on critical issues that spill across boundaries.For now, at least, Washington’s answer is unmistakably clear. It’s a pivot away from international forums, a tilt toward domestic priorities, and a confession that, when forced to choose, “America First” means just that—even if the rest of the world isn’t coming along.