By Daniel Agbo
WASHINGTON — The State Department announced Wednesday that the United States is withdrawing from 66 international organizations, labeling the entities as “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful” to American interests.
The sweeping move, authorized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, follows an executive order issued by President Trump to review the value of multilateral institutions. In a formal press statement, Rubio signaled that the administration is prepared to further shrink the nation’s global footprint as evaluations of other organizations continue.
“President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it,” Rubio said.
“The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”
A Shift Toward Sovereignty
The State Department’s review characterized the targeted groups as “captured” by foreign agendas that run contrary to U.S. prosperity. Rubio’s statement criticized the current landscape of global governance, claiming it has shifted from a framework for peace into a “sprawling architecture” dominated by progressive ideologies.
Rubio specifically took aim at what he called “climate orthodoxy” and “DEI mandates,” framing the withdrawal as a necessary defense of national sovereignty.
“We will not continue expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests,” Rubio said.
Dismantling the ‘NGO-plex’
The announcement links the withdrawals to a broader effort to dismantle what the administration calls the “multilateral NGO-plex.” This includes the recent closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which the administration previously characterized as a vehicle for globalist projects.
The 66 organizations slated for withdrawal include various bodies the administration claims are redundant or poorly managed, though a full finalized list of the specific entities was not immediately attached to the public summary.
“We reject inertia and ideology in favor of prudence and purpose,” Rubio added. “We seek cooperation where it serves our people and will stand firm where it does not.”
Critics of the move have expressed concern that a mass withdrawal could diminish U.S. influence on the world stage, while supporters argue the pivot ensures taxpayer dollars are prioritized for domestic needs.
