President Donald Trump’s sweeping order to withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations is not merely a policy shift; it is a deliberate dismantling of the architecture of American-led global governance. Framed as a corrective to “redundant” and unfair burdens, this move is, in reality, a profound strategic abdication. The immediate consequences—diminished funding and crippled leadership in agencies from global health to climate action—are severe. But the enduring legacy will be the systematic transfer of institutional influence to a rising power whose interests are fundamentally at odds with liberal democratic values: the People’s Republic of China.

The Trump administration’s rationale hinges on a transactional, zero-sum view of international cooperation. The arguments of disproportionate cost and lack of control, while politically potent, ignore the intangible returns on investment. Funding the WHO or UNESCO was never a charity; it was a strategic purchase of influence, a means to set agendas, promote shared values, and build a world order conducive to American security and prosperity. By fixating on the price tag and alleging “pro-China bias,” the U.S. is forfeiting the very leverage it seeks. Exiting the room does not diminish China’s voice; it amplifies it.

The retreat from the climate regime epitomizes this self-inflicted wound. Abandoning the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is an unprecedented act of isolation. It cedes the commanding heights of the defining global issue of this century—the green transition—to others. As the world negotiates the rules for carbon markets, green technology, and climate finance, the U.S. will be a mere spectator. China, already the world’s leading renewable energy manufacturer and investor, is poised to write those rules, locking in advantages for decades and burnishing its image as a responsible stakeholder, even as it remains the world’s largest emitter.

This is not to say China will simply replicate the U.S. model. Its approach to multilateralism is inherently different: more transactional, less value-driven, and focused on insulating regimes from scrutiny on human rights or sovereignty. Institutions weakened by a U.S. funding exodus will become more susceptible to this model. We can expect a shift in priorities—away from reproductive health (with the exit from UNFPA) and gender equality (UN Women), and toward infrastructure and development projects that align with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its authoritarian governance playbook.

Trump’s team believes raw power—economic and military—can compensate for this institutional retreat. Their faith in tariffs and gunboat diplomacy as primary tools is misguided. While military strikes can eliminate immediate threats, they cannot build the enduring coalitions needed to manage transnational challenges like pandemics, cyber-security, or nuclear proliferation. Similarly, tariffs disrupt trade but do not create the standards and norms that govern the digital economy or global supply chains. By leaving the tables where these rules are made, the U.S. will increasingly find itself forced to react to frameworks designed in Beijing or Brussels.

The administration’s intention to remain in technical bodies like the International Telecommunication Union reveals a tactical, not strategic, understanding of the contest. It plans to fight a rearguard action on specific standards while surrendering the broader battlefield of global governance. This piecemeal approach lacks the coherence needed to counter China’s patient, long-term strategy of embedding itself across the entire multilateral system.

In the short term, allies like India and France, which lead initiatives like the International Solar Alliance, will feel the strain, scrambling to fill funding gaps. In the long term, everyone loses from a fragmented, leaderless global system—except for a revisionist power eager to reshape it. The post-1945 order, for all its flaws, provided a measure of stability and common purpose. Trump’s memo signals its accelerated unravelling.

The great paradox of “America First” is that by refusing to lead the world, America ensures a world it will find increasingly hostile to its interests and ideals. The vacuum created is not empty; it is being filled. And the new architect is waiting in the wings, cheque book and blueprint in hand.