Trump’s Approach to the United Nations and Global Influence: A Shift Toward American Primacy
In the early months of his second term, President Donald Trump has pursued a foreign policy that markedly reduces U.S. involvement in multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, while asserting stronger American control over the Western Hemisphere. Critics have described these actions as a deliberate effort to undermine the UN and pursue U.S. dominance, though the administration frames them as necessary reforms to prioritize national interests and reject what it calls wasteful or anti-American global structures.
A key development occurred on January 7, 2026, when Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations. This included 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN groups deemed contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty. The move built on earlier steps, such as exiting the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, and UNESCO. The administration halted funding and participation in bodies focused on climate change, women’s empowerment, population issues, and sustainable development goals, arguing that many promote agendas misaligned with American values or waste taxpayer resources.
The 2025 National Security Strategy, released late in the previous year, provides the doctrinal foundation for this approach. It criticizes international institutions for fostering “anti-Americanism” and “transnationalism” that erodes state sovereignty. The document rejects the idea of the U.S. pursuing global domination or bearing endless burdens for the world order. Instead, it advocates “peace through strength,” bilateral deals over multilateral commitments, and a return to pragmatic realism. It emphasizes preventing domination by others while maintaining balances of power regionally—such as U.S. leadership in the Americas, Russia’s in parts of Europe, and China’s in Asia.
Despite explicit disavowals of imperial ambitions in official texts, actions in the Western Hemisphere have fueled accusations of regional dominance. On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces conducted “Operation Absolute Resolve,” a military strike that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them to New York to face charges including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. The operation, which involved airstrikes and special forces, resulted in reported casualties and power disruptions in Caracas. Trump announced that the U.S. would temporarily “run” Venezuela to restore its oil industry, manage reserves (with claims that profits would benefit Venezuelans), and facilitate a transition—moves without UN Security Council approval or congressional declaration of war.
This intervention revived the Monroe Doctrine, originally declared in 1823 to oppose European interference in the Americas. Trump has explicitly invoked a “Trump Corollary” (sometimes called the “Donroe Doctrine”), which asserts U.S. rights to counter “extra-hemispheric” influences—particularly from China—and secure strategic resources through unilateral action if needed. The National Security Strategy frames this as restoring American preeminence in the hemisphere by denying rivals control over vital assets.
Additional moves reinforce this regional focus: threats to acquire Greenland if Denmark refuses, warnings to countries like Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba regarding potential anti-drug operations on their soil, and expanded U.S. military presence in Ecuador, Panama, and Haiti. Critics, including foreign policy analysts and international observers, view these as a return to 19th-century imperialism, prioritizing U.S. strength and resource access over multilateral norms and sovereignty.
The administration maintains that these policies promote restraint elsewhere—avoiding “forever wars” or nation-building abroad—while protecting core U.S. interests. Supporters argue that withdrawing from burdensome institutions frees resources and forces allies to share more responsibility, such as higher NATO defense spending. However, detractors warn that diminishing the UN’s role, combined with unilateral interventions, risks isolating the U.S., empowering adversaries, and destabilizing the post-World War II international system.
Public discourse, including on platforms like X, often portrays these developments as part of a broader plan to sideline the UN—perhaps even replacing it with U.S.-led alternatives like a proposed “Board of Peace”—in favor of raw power politics. As events unfold rapidly in 2026, the long-term consequences for global stability, alliances, and U.S. leadership remain uncertain. The strategy reflects a clear pivot: away from collective multilateralism toward assertive, interest-driven unilateralism centered on American primacy in its immediate sphere.
About The Author
