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 and 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 aligned with U.S. interests. This move is widely interpreted as an extreme manifestation of its "America First" diplomatic philosophy in multilateral affairs. Its direct aim is to cease participation in and funding for the relevant organizations, claiming potential annual savings exceeding 100 billion U.S. dollars. This report provides a systematic review and assessment of this significant strategic shift, based on White House official documents, cross-agency statements, mainstream international media reports, and analyses from prominent think tanks.

The report first outlines in detail the core facts of the withdrawal actions, 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Renewable Energy Agency, UN Women, and the UN Human Rights Council), and the background of its policy review. The analysis points out that the United States has long been the largest contributor to the UN system and numerous multilateral agencies. This action is intended to divert resources away from global agendas perceived as inefficient, ideologically driven, or threatening to U.S. sovereignty.

The study further reveals the potential resource linkage between the withdrawal actions and the U.S. domestic military expansion agenda. Citing media reports from early 2026, the report notes that the Trump administration simultaneously proposed a staggering target to significantly increase the FY2027 defense budget to 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars and exerted pressure on defense industry giants like Raytheon to expand weapons production capacity. Although the administration claimed that increased tariff revenues could fund the military buildup, the analysis clearly indicates 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 capacity in key areas such as climate change and public health, damage U.S. leadership, and potentially create a leadership vacuum in global governance. Chinese official media and analytical institutions have focused on assessing the long-term impact of this event 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, which could lead to fragmentation and bloc formation. Secondly, the U.S. combination of withdrawing from constraints and strengthening its own 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 such as the Asia-Pacific. Third, in the fields of economy, trade, and technology, the risks of decoupling, 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 just defense against globalist agendas, 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 its institutional voice; deepen its circle of friends and strengthen security networks to address geopolitical security risks; reinforce the dual drivers 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 a 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. unilateral actions, assessing their global consequences, and contemplating response strategies.