The White House Says the U.S. Is Withdrawing From Dozens of International Organizations , What the Memo Actually Says

If you've been scrolling through your timeline and saw headlines about the U.S. "leaving 66 international organizations," you probably had one of two reactions: panic or confusion. Maybe both.

Here's the tea: this is a significant policy move, but the conversation online is already getting murky with hot takes, fear-mongering, and a whole lot of "what does this even mean?"

So let's break it down , no political spin, just the facts. Because understanding what's actually happening is how we stay empowered instead of overwhelmed.

The Number Everyone's Talking About: 66

Let's start with what's concrete. President Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations. That breaks down to:

• 35 non-UN organizations

• 31 UN entities

That's the number making headlines. But here's where it gets more nuanced than a tweet can capture.

The memorandum directs all executive departments and agencies to cease participation in and funding for these organizations "as soon as possible." For UN entities specifically, the language says withdrawal means ceasing participation or funding "to the extent permitted by law."

So we're not talking about a light switch moment where everything changes overnight. We're talking about a process , one that will unfold differently depending on the specific organization, existing agreements, and legal frameworks.

What's the White House's Reasoning?

Let's be real: you don't have to agree with a policy to understand why it's being implemented. And if you're going to have an informed opinion, you need to know the stated rationale.

According to the White House fact sheet, these withdrawals target organizations that are allegedly:

• Contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, and sovereignty

• Wasteful, ineffective, or advancing "hostile agendas"

• Addressing important issues inefficiently , meaning U.S. taxpayer dollars could supposedly be better allocated elsewhere

The administration frames this as pushing back against what they call "globalist agendas" that prioritize international consensus over American priorities.

Now, whether you think that's valid reasoning or political posturing is up to you. But that's the official line.

How Did We Get Here?

This didn't come out of nowhere. The memorandum implements findings from Executive Order 14199, issued back on February 4, 2025. That order directed the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of every international intergovernmental organization, convention, and treaty receiving U.S. membership, funding, or support.

The Secretary of State submitted findings. The President reviewed them. And now we have this list of 66 organizations flagged for withdrawal.

So this has been in motion for months : it's just hitting the public conversation now because the memo dropped and people are reacting.

Why Should You Care If You're Not Into Politics?

Here's where it gets personal, bestie.

"International organizations" sounds like something that only matters to diplomats and policy wonks. But these entities touch your everyday life more than you might realize:

Global health coordination : Think pandemic response, vaccine distribution, disease surveillance. When the world coordinates on health emergencies, it's often through these organizations.

Airline and shipping standards : Ever wonder how international flights operate safely or how packages get shipped across borders? International bodies set those standards.

Trade rules and dispute processes : The prices you pay for goods, the jobs in your community, the economic opportunities available : all connected to how trade works globally.

Refugee and humanitarian infrastructure : When crises happen around the world, these organizations often coordinate the response.

Data sharing, scientific cooperation, and crisis response : From climate monitoring to earthquake response to research collaboration, this is the infrastructure that makes global problem-solving possible.

What This Doesn't Mean

Let's pump the brakes on some of the more dramatic interpretations floating around.

This memorandum does not mean:

• The U.S. is completely isolating itself from the world

• All international cooperation is ending immediately

• Every global agreement is being abandoned

• Travel or trade will stop functioning

What it does mean is that the U.S. is selectively reducing support and participation in specific organizations. The administration is staying in many structures while stepping back from others.

The real questions become:

• Which specific organizations are on this list?

• What functions do they serve?

• What does reduced U.S. participation actually look like on the ground?

• What are the second-order effects : the ripple effects we might not see immediately?

The Implementation Reality

Here's something the headlines often skip: there's a difference between announcing a withdrawal and actually executing it.

Some changes may happen quickly : participation stops, funding gets cut.

Some may involve longer administrative unwinding : think contracts, commitments, and bureaucratic processes.

Some may get contested politically and legally depending on the specific entity and existing agreements.

So if you're tracking this story, don't assume the announcement equals immediate, complete change. Watch what actually happens in the weeks and months ahead.

How to Stay Informed Without Losing Your Mind

If you're feeling overwhelmed by this news : or any policy news, honestly : here are some ways to stay empowered:

Go to primary sources. The White House fact sheet and presidential memorandum are publicly available. Reading them yourself beats relying on someone else's interpretation.

Watch for implementation details. The announcement is just the beginning. The real story is what changes actually happen.

Understand who's affected. Different communities and sectors will feel this differently. Pay attention to voices from public health, humanitarian work, trade, and other affected areas.

Don't let fear content win. Some people are going to turn this into apocalyptic content for clicks. Recognize that pattern and don't feed it.

Stay curious, not just reactive. Ask questions. Seek context. Understand that complex policy rarely fits into a single tweet.

The Bigger Picture

Whether you think this is a smart policy move or a dangerous mistake, one thing is clear: how we engage with global systems is shifting.

And that matters beyond political teams. It matters for how problems get solved, how crises get managed, and how connected : or disconnected : we are from the rest of the world.

You don't have to have all the answers right now. But staying informed, asking good questions, and refusing to let fear or hype drive your understanding? That's how you stay powerful in uncertain times.

Bottom Line

The White House memorandum ordering withdrawal from 66 international organizations is real, significant, and worth understanding.

But the real impact depends on:

• The specific list of organizations

• How withdrawal is actually executed

• What second-order effects emerge over time

If you're covering this, discussing this, or just trying to make sense of it : keep it grounded, avoid hype framing, and stick to what's documented.

Knowledge is power. And right now, the most empowering thing you can do is understand the policy story behind the headlines.

---

Stay plugged in with Shalena Speaks for more breakdowns on the news and culture that actually affects your life.