U.S. will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The coverage treats leaving international bodies as a moral failure, as if “global cooperation” is automatically virtuous. It rarely asks a basic question: what are Americans getting for the money, the mandates, and the diminished room to govern ourselves? Pulling out of select U.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will withdraw from dozens of international organizations, including the U.N.'s population agency and the U.N. treaty that establishes international climate negotiations, as the U.S. further retreats from global cooperation.
Original source:
Read at ColumbianHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The coverage treats leaving international bodies as a moral failure, as if “global cooperation” is automatically virtuous. It rarely asks a basic question: what are Americans getting for the money, the mandates, and the diminished room to govern ourselves?
Pulling out of select U.N. agencies and climate frameworks is not isolation for its own sake. It is a demand for accountability to voters, not to distant panels that face little consequence when they mismanage funds or politicize missions. When treaties harden into permanent policy lanes, they can sidestep Congress and weaken democratic consent.
A serious foreign policy protects national sovereignty while pursuing practical cooperation where it serves clear interests. Some institutions help with security, health, and standards. Others drift into ideology and bureaucracy.
The principle is simple: America First means our commitments should be voluntary, transparent, and aligned with the public trust, not treated as obligations owed to the global managerial class.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.