The United States withdrew from an "international group chat," saving over $10 billion annually, which is intended to be used to "fuel" its military expansion plan.

Key Chapter Title List

1. Core Facts of the Trump Administration's Announcement to Withdraw from 66 International Organizations
2. Initiative on the Correlation Between Withdrawal from International Organizations and Military Spending Expansion & Resource Allocation
3. Reactions from International Organizations, Nations, and Public Opinion to U.S. Measures
4. Risk Analysis
5. Response Recommendations
6. Reference Sources

Document Introduction

In January 2026, the Trump administration signed a presidential memorandum, formally initiating the process for the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations deemed "not in the U.S. interest." This move is widely interpreted as an extreme manifestation of its "America First" foreign policy doctrine in multilateral affairs. Its direct aim is to cease participation in and funding for the relevant organizations, claiming potential annual savings exceeding ten billion dollars. Based on White House official documents, inter-agency statements, mainstream international media reports, and analyses from prominent think tanks, this report provides a systematic review and assessment of this major strategic shift.

The report first outlines in detail the core facts of the "withdrawal" action, including the specific content of the memorandum, the broad scope of organizations involved (covering 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN agencies, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Renewable Energy Agency, UN Women, and the UN Human Rights Council, etc.), and the background of its policy review. The analysis points out that the U.S. has long been the largest contributor to the UN system and many multilateral institutions. This action is intended to divert resources away from global agendas perceived as "inefficient," "ideologically driven," or "threatening U.S. sovereignty."

The research further reveals the potential resource linkage between the "withdrawal" action and the U.S. domestic military expansion agenda. Citing media reports from early 2026, the report notes that the Trump administration simultaneously proposed the staggering goal of significantly increasing the FY2027 defense budget to $1.5 trillion and pressured defense industry giants like Raytheon to expand weapons production capacity. Although the administration claimed that increased tariff revenues could fund the armaments, the analysis clearly states that this is far from sufficient to cover its massive fiscal commitments, highlighting the real risk of a funding gap.

The report comprehensively assesses the diverse reactions from the international community. The U.S. government and some domestic public opinion firmly support the move, emphasizing its aim to defend national sovereignty and economic interests. However, international organizations, numerous experts, and members of the European Parliament have generally criticized it, arguing that it will weaken global cooperation capabilities in key areas such as climate change and public health, damage U.S. leadership, and potentially lead to a "leadership vacuum" in global governance. Chinese official media and analytical institutions have focused on assessing the long-term impact of this matter on the effectiveness of the UN system and the structure of global governance.

Based on the above facts, the report conducts an in-depth risk analysis. The primary risk lies in the disorder of the international rules-based system and the exacerbation of a "leadership vacuum" in global governance, potentially leading to fragmentation and bloc-ization of governance. Secondly, the U.S. combination of "withdrawing from constraints" and "strengthening power," shifting towards a more inward-looking, militarized, and zero-sum foreign policy, will worsen the global strategic security environment, intensify major power competition, and create greater pressure in geopolitical hotspots like the Asia-Pacific. Third, in the fields of economy, trade, and technology, the risks of "decoupling and supply chain disruption" and rule fragmentation are rising, exposing Chinese enterprises to systemic compliance risks. Fourth, ideological and narrative struggles are becoming more acute and complex, as the U.S. packages its actions as a righteous defense against the "globalist agenda," putting pressure on China's international public opinion environment.

Finally, the report proposes targeted strategic recommendations. It advocates that China should actively lead within multilateral frameworks to enhance institutional discourse power; deepen its "circle of friends" and build a robust "security network" to address geopolitical security risks; strengthen the "twin engines" of technological self-reliance and high-level opening-up to resist economic "decoupling" pressures; and innovate in international communication, systematically constructing and disseminating narratives such as the "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" to compete for the global moral high ground. This report provides a fact-based, rigorous, and professional analytical framework for understanding the underlying logic of current U.S. unilateralist actions, assessing their global consequences, and contemplating response strategies.