By: Josephine M. Hall and Ella E. Sullivan
Edited by: Don Edwards
Introduction
A striking aspect of President Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy is withdrawing from international agreements. In his first term, he withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the Treaty on Open Skies.1 He also announced that the United States would leave The Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization (WHO), but both withdrawals did not have time to take effect before he left office.2,3 President Biden announced that the United States would rejoin both organizations on his first day in office.4,5 Trump quickly reversed Biden’s actions on the first day of his second term, again announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO and Paris Climate Accord. Trump argues that the United States contributes more than it benefits, making it vulnerable to exploitation. The United States is a major funding source of the WHO6 and NATO,7 and would incur costs in reducing fossil fuels to meet its Paris Climate Accord goals.8 However, concerns have been raised about the effects these withdrawals could have on the environment, public health, and foreign relations. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the foreign policy consequences of leaving international agreements and organizations, focusing on the Paris Agreement, WHO, and threat to leave NATO. The potential risks of leaving international agreements include reduced credibility abroad, destabilization of the international system, and reduced influence on international policy.
Losing Trust Abroad
Western European countries and U.S. allies have low approval ratings of President Trump’s policies.9 According to a Pew Research Center study conducted after Biden’s inauguration in 2021, “A median of 89% across the 16 publics surveyed approve of the United States rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), which the United States withdrew from during Trump’s presidency. A median of 85% also support the United States rejoining the Paris climate agreement.”10 Trump’s decision to again leave these agreements could damage U.S. credibility abroad. International cooperation depends on the belief that countries will follow through on their commitments. The recent volatility of U.S. domestic politics has damaged its perceived reliability.11 International agreements do not have strong enforcement mechanisms. The Paris Agreement, for example, allows countries to set their own emissions reduction goals and has no penalties for failing to meet them. Carbon emissions are a collective action problem, meaning that an individual country’s efforts to reduce emissions are not effective if other countries’ emissions remain high.12 Therefore, climate change mitigation efforts, like the Paris Agreement, depend on the credibility of a country’s intentions to follow the agreement. Repeated withdrawals from international agreements across administrations undermine U.S. credibility, possibly making it harder to secure long-term diplomatic commitments. A potential negative effect of leaving international agreements is a reduction in U.S. credibility that will make future efforts for international cooperation more difficult.
International System at Risk?
The post-World War II international system was designed to prevent large-scale conflict and ensure global stability. The United States created the UN along with The Soviet Union, The United Kingdom, and China.13 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created, primarily by the United States, to ensure collective security against the Soviet Union and limit communist expansion.14 U.S. involvement is integral to these organizations and international cooperation. The U.S. military serves as a key deterrent. Taiwan’s de facto independence heavily relies on the credibility of U.S. military intervention against Chinese aggression.15 A similar principle applies to NATO. Countries in NATO are protected from attacks through collective defense supported largely by the US. The concern of freeriding in NATO is a longstanding issue in U.S. politics as around a third of NATO countries still do not meet the target of spending two percent of their GDP.16 Trump is the first U.S. president to openly threaten withdrawal as leverage to compel greater contributions. Trump’s unpredictability can be a foreign policy tool. “Madman Theory” claims that when a leader is viewed as irrational, they gain leverage in international bargaining.17 For example, in nuclear deterrence, “if adversaries believe a leader might follow through on catastrophic actions, they are more likely to exercise caution.”18
While this unpredictability aligns with the ‘Madman Theory’ of international relations, where perceived irrationality can be a bargaining tool, it carries risks. NATO countries are more likely to increase their contributions for fear that Trump would actually leave NATO if they didn’t. However, extreme statements, like annexing Canada or Greenland, can be dismissed as ingenuine. With the goal of appearing strong to Russia and China “Trump’s threats to expand U.S. presence in Greenland or reclaim the Panama Canal may serve as strategic signals to deter these powers, but they must be calibrated to avoid provoking conflict or undermining alliances.”19 Therefore, a continuation of this trend to leave international agreements, especially the weakening of NATO, could lead to a breakdown of the current international system of alliances and international security. Beyond military alliances, Trump’s isolationist policies also impact international development and aid. Public health experts have raised concerns that the United States leaving the WHO will reduce the world’s ability to respond to and spread information about infectious disease outbreaks.20 Public health crises can destabilize foreign governments which could harm U.S. interests. According to Political Scientist and professor of Global Public Health, Scott Greer, the United States will be less prepared for future infectious diseases due to this change.21 In summary, both the specific international organizations Trump has already left and the overall trend of the United States becoming more isolated from other countries could have destabilizing effects on the current U.S.-led international system.
Filling the Void: China’s Turn
Trump’s withdrawal from major international agreements, such as the WHO and Paris Agreement, have opened the doors for greater influence from China on the international stage. The United States has left behind a vacuum for power and control and China is eager to fill it. China’s influence on the global health scene has heightened ever since early 2020 with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.22 While China-WHO relations were not consistently cooperative throughout the pandemic, the organization maintained reliance on Chinese data in relation to the virus.23 Prior to the United States’ exit from the WHO, China was already increasing its contributions to the organization and has continued to do so since.24 While China’s contributions remain well under what the United States was providing before its withdrawal,25 its position post-pandemic could be enough to fill the U.S. sized hole left in the organization. In addition to global influence, the U.S. withdrawal from international agreements allows China to gain more control of the international narrative. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Beijing has challenged the commitment levels of Washington in regard to international efforts, specifically climate related.26 This could be considered a hypocritical claim to make considering the environmental implications of China’s newest and largest infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative.27 However, China’s commitment, at least as a signatory to the Paris Agreement, now provides an upper hand when debating climate responsibility. Beijing has used this second Trump withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to condemn the United States’ climate irresponsibility, therefore framing their continued pledge to the Agreement as an accomplishment. This narrative could lead the international community to view China as a collaborator and better fit as a global leader.
Substantive or Not, Perception Matters
Americans and the international community alike have raised questions regarding the lasting impact of Trump’s isolationist policy of leaving major international agreements.28 There are several possible lasting impacts, but it is also possible that the effects could be much less dramatic than projected. American foreign policy can not necessarily be changed overnight, even through an administration change. While Trump’s orders may seem audacious, they have so far been fairly optic.29 In comparing the foreign policy of the first Trump administration to the Biden administration, not many deep rooted changes were made.30 NATO expansion, military force in the Middle East, and diplomacy with China are all longstanding U.S. foreign policies that were continued under both Trump and Biden.31 This is not to say that Trump’s actions should be dismissed. Optic or not, Trump’s actions have and will impact the way the United States is perceived on the world stage. It is important to consider this perception even when making the argument that Trump’s actions are benign, or his threats are empty.
Conclusion
Trump’s habit of leaving international agreements has already been cause for international response and has the potential to sustain long lasting effects.32 The United States has long served as a global leader and architect of many international agreements and organizations, meaning this trend could pose a threat to the international system itself. Allies of the United States may begin to question U.S. leadership and credibility, while growing powers, like China, will see this era as an opportunity. Either way, these actions are not insignificant, and it is crucial to evaluate where they may take the United States in the future.
Works Cited
1. Council on Foreign Relations. 2017. “Trump’s Foreign Policy Moments.” December 13. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/trumps-foreign-policy-moments.
2. Ibid.
3. White & Case LLP. n.d. “US Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Impact and Next Steps.” Accessed February 7, 2025. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-withdrawal-paris-agreement-impact-and-next-steps.
4. Wingrove, Patrick, Jennifer Rigby, and Emma Farge. n.d. “Trump Signs Executive Withdrawing from World Health Organization.” Reuters. Accessed February 7, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-signs-executive-withdrawing-world-health-organization-2025-01-21/
5. Daly, Matthew, and Seth Borgenstein. 2025. “Trump Signs Executive Order Directing U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement — Again.” AP News. January 21. https://apnews.com/article/trump-paris-agreement-climate-change-788907bb89fe307a964be757313cdfb0
6. KFF. 2025. “The U.S. Government and the World Health Organization.” February 4. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-u-s-government-and-the-world-health-organization/
7. NATO. 2024. “Funding NATO.” December 19. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
8. Research Outreach. 2023. “Climate Change Economics: A Net Cost Analysis of the Paris Agreement Targets.” November 8. https://researchoutreach.org/articles/climate-change-economics-net-cost-analysis-paris-agreement-targets/
9. Wike, Richard, Jacob Poushter, Laura Silver, Janell Fetterolf, and Mara Mordecai. 2022. “America’s Image Abroad Rebounds with Transition from Trump to Biden.” Pew Research Center. March 22. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/10/americas-image-abroad-rebounds-with-transition-from-trump-to-biden/
10. Ibid.
11. Cohen, Jared, and Ian Bremmer. 2023. “The Global Credibility Gap.” Foreign Policy. December 6. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/06/global-geopolitics-credibility-us-china-competition-alliances-deterrence-military-economic-power/
12. Council on Foreign Relations. n.d. “New Climate Change Resources.” Accessed February 7, 2025. https://education.cfr.org/climate-change-resources
13. Office of the Historian. n.d. “Milestones: 1937–1945.” Accessed February 7, 2025. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/un
14. Ibid.
15. Maizland, Lindsay, and Clara Fong. 2005. “Why China-Taiwan Relations Are So Tense.” Council on Foreign Relations. November 16. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy-trump
16. Falkenek, Clara. 2024. “Who’s at 2 Percent? Look How NATO Allies Have Increased Their Defense Spending Since Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” Atlantic Council. July 8. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
17. McManus, Roseanne W. n.d. “Madman Theory Book Proposal.” University of Notre Dame International Security Center. Accessed February 7, 2025. https://ndisc.nd.edu/assets/467565/mcmanus_madman_theory_book_proposal.pdf
18. Henninger, Sean. 2025. “The Logic of Chaos in Trump’s Second-Term Foreign Policy.” RealClearWorld. January 24. https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2025/01/24/the_logic_of_chaos_in_trumps_second-term_foreign_policy_1086859.html
19. Ibid.
20. Brownstein, Maya. 2025. “U.S. Withdrawal from WHO Increases Odds of ‘Public Health Disasters,’ Says Expert.” Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. January 23. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/u-s-withdrawal-from-who-increases-odds-of-public-health-disasters-says-expert/
21. University of Michigan School of Public Health. 2025. “US Leaving World Health Organization: Now What?” January 22. https://sph.umich.edu/news
22. Feldwisch-Drentrup, Hinnerk. 2020. “How WHO Became China’s Coronavirus Accomplice.” Foreign Policy. Last modified April 2. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/
23. “WHO Urges China to Be ‘Transparent’ in Sharing COVID-19 Data.” 2023. UN News. Last modified March 17. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134727
24. Shih, Gerry. 2020. “China Pledges Additional 30 Million Funding for World Health Organization.” The Washington Post. Last modified April 23. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-pledges-additional-30-million-funding-for-world-health-organization/2020/04/23/24f9b680-8539-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
25. Huang, Yanzhong. 2025. “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence.” Think Global Health. Accessed February 7. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/us-who-exit-could-expand-chinas-influence.
26. Earth.Org. 2020. “China Foreign Ministry Criticises U.S. on Its Climate Policies.” Earth.Org. Last modified October 24. https://earth.org/china-criticises-us-on-climate-policies/.
27. Chiu, Ethan. 2024. “Environmental Implications Of The Belt And Road Initiative: Geopolitics And Climate Change.” The Yale Review of International Studies. Last modified February 18. https://yris.yira.org/column/environmental-implications-of-the-belt-and-road-initiative/
28. “UN Regrets U.S. Exit from Global Cooperation on Health, Climate Change Agreement.” 2025. UN News. Last modified January 22. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1159211.
29. Fontaine, Richard. 2025. “The Trump-Biden-Trump Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs. Last modified January 27. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/trump-biden-trump-foreign-policy
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. NPR Staff. 2025. “Reactions to Trump’s Withdrawal of U.S. from WHO.” NPR. Last modified January 21. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/21/nx-s1-5269601/reactions-to-trumps-withdrawal-of-u-s-from-who
Author Bios
Josephine Hall studies International Security and Conflict Resolution at San Diego State University in San Diego, California. She is particularly interested in analyzing the complexities of global security, diplomacy, and conflict resolution, striving to contribute to meaningful policy solutions on the international stage. Josephine hopes to pursue a career researching international relations.
Ella Sullivan studies Political Science, Economics, and Italian at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include global policy and international relations. She hopes to pursue a career in political science research.