By Clémence Van Damme & Pedro Mendes - The US Desk
Introduction
According to John Ruggie, multilateralism refers to coordinating relations between three or more states by certain principles. He argues that NATO was predicated on two multilateralist principles, the indivisibility of threats to the collective (response irrespective of the attacker) and “diffuse reciprocity” (members expecting a rough equivalence of benefits over time). The same NATO now doubts the American commitment to respond.
These shared principles appear to be changing with the Trump administration. The signing of an executive order on February 4th, to review all current multilateral organisations, and determine whether American support should be withdrawn, marks the “America First” rhetoric, which saw a withdrawal of the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, concurrently with USAid’s large cut in funding. Ultimately, are we witnessing a shift in foreign policy or a schism in American multilateralism?
The Erosion of Multilateralism Under Trump
The signing of this executive order, originated from an alleged drift from the agency's original mission, contrary to the interests of the US and its allies. In light of the broader political context, this change in stance gives rise to an increased criticism of multilateral agreements.
Trump’s criticism of multilateralism concerns three aspects; international organisations infringing on American sovereignty (regardless of its voluntary involvement and consistent with the Constitution), the restriction of the US’s freedom of action (in contrast with the predictability and trade-offs of the collective effort), and the cost of this multilateral involvement, which is the subject of much debate.
Policy-wise, the once-held belief of Ukraine’s Victory being vital, is being shattered by sharp criticism of Ukrainian leadership, the demands for a swift end to hostilities, and a semblance of peace. The possibility of a narrative that grants Russia a chance to turn the context into a political victory, undermines the “Western” model and denotes its failures. However, the latest diplomatic developments with Ukrainian leadership might even prompt Russia to escalate the conflict and risk paving the way for revisionist adversaries to challenge American primacy with renewed vigour.
What this means to the LIO (liberal international order) is a constant challenge to some of its core characteristics, namely, free trade and open markets being contested by tariffs, a US-led “Western” perspective permeating institutions, and organisations, being opposed by an aggressive pursuit of “vital interests”, and the political exceptionalism of the US, “the city atop a hill”, contrasting with a more unilateralist, nationalist, realist pursuit of political goals, albeit, far from isolationist.
Case Study: US Withdrawal from the World Health Organisation
On January 20, 2025, the White House issued an executive order announcing the US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO). Donald Trump announced his intent to leave in July 2020 based on several concerns: the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, its failure to implement crucial reforms, and its lack of independence from political influence. He also cited what he called « unfairly onerous and out of proportion » financial demands.
As the largest financial contributor, providing 34% of the WHO’s $6.8 billion budget for 2024-2025, the US’s departure threatens critical operations, including the WHO’s health emergencies program. US funding accounts for up to 40% of its operations, forming a critical « backbone » for emergency health responses in conflict zones. Additionally, specialised initiatives such as polio eradication and tuberculosis treatment face uncertain future.
Moreover, Washington’s move will undermine US diplomatic influence. It will limit its ability to engage with nations, especially those with strained political relations, through health initiatives, ultimately risking to harm long-term security, economic interests, and geopolitical stability. This power vacuum paves the way for nations to expand their influence in global health governance. By shaping international norms in its favour and leveraging health diplomacy, countries like China can strengthen bilateral partnerships.
In addition, Trump’s withdrawal has strained transatlantic relations, as European nations, like Germany, view this decision as a retreat from multilateral cooperation, prompting European leaders to reconsider US leadership in global health. Furthermore, this decision sets a precedent for other right-wing governments, such as those in Argentina and Italy, which have also cited their intent to leave.
The implications of Trump’s exit exacerbate the broader decline of multilateral cooperation, reinforcing a pattern of disengagement from international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the UN human rights body. This has been viewed by several observers as indicative of the US’s shift toward unilateral policies, reducing its participation in global health efforts, and further isolating it on the international stage.
Washington has however pursued alternative bilateral agreements, such as its recent health cooperation initiative with India. This signals an effort to maintain strategic influence in global health while shifting away from multilateral frameworks.
Conclusion: What Comes Next?
The change in American foreign policy within the Trump administration poses a great challenge to the multilateral order established after WWII. The US withdrawal from multilateral organisations represents a profound shift towards focused bilateral relations and transactional diplomacy, where national interests are given precedence over the principles set for cooperation. Such drastic changes, however, have deep repercussions, ranging from the global impact on health security to diplomatic soft power, and international relations as a whole.
All these considerations beg the question of how likely a return to multilateralism in future administrations is, and why would that approach be justified, given the damage caused by withdrawing from treaties and organisations. Trust in US commitment to these frameworks has been eroded, and other challengers have taken America’s leading role in the international arena. Such policies may change, but the amount of time China and other countries have had to set normative behaviour and relationships to fill the gap left by America’s absence makes the need to reconsider how the objectives of multilateral policies have shifted.
This draws attention to one of the most important problems which is: Can effective global governance exist without consistent American leadership, or are we witnessing the emergence of a new multipolar system with competing spheres of influence?
