The United States has begun a sweeping withdrawal from dozens of international organisations following a directive issued by President Donald Trump, marking one of the most significant shifts in U.S. multilateral engagement in recent years.

In a presidential memorandum signed on Wednesday, Trump ordered all federal departments and agencies to immediately cease participation in, and funding for, 66 international organisations, including several United Nations agencies and non-UN bodies. The White House said the decision followed an extensive review of U.S. involvement in global institutions.

According to an official fact sheet released by the administration, the affected organisations were identified as entities that no longer align with American national interests, security priorities or economic objectives. The pullout affects 31 UN-linked bodies and 35 other international organisations.

Administration Cites Sovereignty and Cost Concerns

The White House said the decision is aimed at protecting U.S. sovereignty and ensuring that taxpayer funds are not channelled into institutions deemed ineffective or hostile to American policy positions.

Officials argued that many of the organisations promote agendas that conflict with U.S. economic strength, security interests or domestic priorities, while offering limited tangible benefits despite years of financial support.

The administration also accused some of the bodies of advancing global policy frameworks that, in its view, undermine national independence and impose regulatory or ideological standards on member states.

Climate, Human Rights, Health Agencies Affected

Among the organisations impacted are several involved in climate policy, environmental governance and international development. These include bodies linked to global climate coordination, public health initiatives, peacebuilding efforts and human rights advocacy.

The White House said U.S. participation in such institutions has often resulted in policy disagreements, criticism of American domestic decisions and limited accountability for how funds are utilised.

While specific funding figures were not disclosed, officials said billions of dollars have been committed over time with minimal measurable returns, prompting a reassessment of U.S. involvement.

Continuation of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda

The latest withdrawals build on earlier decisions taken since Trump’s return to office. Within days of resuming the presidency, he initiated the U.S. exit from the World Health Organization and reaffirmed the country’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The administration has also challenged international tax coordination efforts, notifying global economic bodies that multilateral tax arrangements would not be enforced within the United States. Reviews were further ordered to assess whether foreign tax policies unfairly disadvantage American companies.

In addition, Trump has previously approved the U.S. withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and ended future funding for the UN agency supporting Palestinian refugees.

Global Reaction and Policy Implications

The decision is expected to generate strong reactions from international partners, particularly as many of the affected organisations play key roles in global coordination on health, climate change, humanitarian assistance and conflict prevention.

Supporters of the move argue that it reinforces national autonomy and allows the U.S. to redirect resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure development, border security and military readiness.

Critics, however, warn that reduced engagement could weaken global cooperation, diminish U.S. influence on international norms and create leadership gaps in multilateral institutions.

As the withdrawals take effect, analysts say the move signals a deeper recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, with Washington increasingly favouring bilateral arrangements and domestic-focused strategies over multilateral frameworks.

The post Trump Orders U.S. Exit From 66 Global Bodies, Signals Shift in Foreign Policy appeared first on Housing TV Africa.

The National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, on Monday met with service chiefs and heads of security and intelligence agencies in Abuja following threats by United States President Donald Trump to launch military action against Nigeria over alleged persecution of Christians.

The high-level security meeting, held at the National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC), assessed the implications of Trump’s remarks and deliberated on measures to coordinate a unified national security response.

Sources disclosed that the meeting, which began in the afternoon, was convened to review intelligence assessments and prepare for possible diplomatic and security outcomes.

The resolutions reached are expected to be communicated through official NSA channels.

Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform, accused Nigeria’s government of failing to protect Christians from Islamist militants, warning that the U.S. “will attack and it will be fast, vicious, and sweet.” He later told reporters that both ground and air operations were being considered as part of the response.

Following the statement, Chad announced the immediate closure of its borders with Nigeria, citing security concerns and possible spillover effects of any U.S. military operation. President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno reportedly ordered a military lockdown along the border to prevent infiltration by armed groups.

Reacting to the development, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, called for renewed diplomatic engagement between Nigeria and the United States, describing dialogue as the only path to resolving the dispute.

Similarly, the Pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, warned against foreign intervention and urged President Bola Tinubu to expedite the creation of state police to curb insecurity.

In a separate statement, Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, said Trump’s stance was a reflection of Nigeria’s deteriorating security and governance, adding that the country’s designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” stemmed from leadership failures.

Security and diplomatic experts also cautioned that Trump’s comments could escalate tensions and harm investor confidence in Nigeria.

Professor Femi Otubanjo of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) described the threat as “frivolous and reactionary,” arguing that it did not reflect official U.S. foreign policy.

Dr. Muda Yusuf, CEO of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), warned that the remarks could undermine Nigeria’s global image and deter investment, despite lacking substantive policy backing.

Meanwhile, the Nigerian government is expected to issue an official statement addressing the situation, as diplomatic discussions continue to prevent escalation and maintain bilateral relations with the United States.

The post NSA, Service Chiefs Meet Over Trump’s Threat of US Strike on Nigeria appeared first on Housing TV Africa.