The recent attitude of the United States of America (USA) towards global institutions has created serious repercussions for the international order. In the second term of the Trump administration, the US decided to withdraw from both the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Likewise, it terminated relations with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), abandoned negotiations on global tax treaties, and imposed sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court.[1] These developments indicate not only a change in the direction of US foreign policy, but also a loss of confidence in the institutions that underpin the principle of multilateralism.
In the global system, the exit of powerful states from international institutions transforms not only the functioning of those institutions, but also the nature of global governance more broadly. These withdrawals not only undermine the legitimacy of multilateral institutions, but also further centralise decision-making processes and narrow the sphere of influence of small and medium-sized states. Instead of seeking common solutions, alternative structures based on regional alliances and ideological blocs emerge. In the long run, this risks replacing global co-operation with a clash of national priorities.
Such steps by the US are, of course, not only symbolic. Considering the weight of the US in the global system and its economic and political influence, its decisions to join or withdraw from international institutions have a ripple effect across the world. Although the principle that states should be legally equal within the United Nations (UN) system, in practice, the decisions of great powers can change this balance. For example, if the decision to withdraw from the WHO is implemented, the organisation will be deprived of US contributions by 2026. In fact, the US contributes about 18% of the WHO budget, and if this support is withdrawn, a contraction in some of the organisation’s activities may become inevitable.[2]
At this point, there is not only a financial vacuum, but also a remarkable shift in the global balance of power. As global actors such as China move into the empty spaces, they are speeding up the evolution of international norms and paving the way for new debates on the values that these institutions represent. For example, following the US withdrawal from UNESCO, China has increased its contributions and become more visibly involved in the senior management, which is a concrete indicator of this transformation. The observation of similar trends in more critical structures such as the WHO or the UNHRC points to a process that needs to be carefully monitored for the future of the principle of multilateralism.
It is seen that this attitude of the USA has encouraged other states. President Javier Milei, known as a Trump fan in Argentina, announced that they would withdraw from the WHO.[3] Similar tendencies have been voiced in countries such as Hungary and Italy, while Israel has limited its relations with the UNHRC in parallel with the United States. Such chain withdrawals may lead to the legitimacy of international institutions being questioned over time.
At this point, the active involvement of civil society in the process stands out as a promising development for global governance. The Civil Society Report 2025, published by the International Civil Society Alliance and the ‘UNMute Civil Society’ initiative, offers a participatory and inclusive solution to the current multilateralism crisis.[4] Within the scope of the initiative, feasible recommendations have been listed for the UN to become more integrated, transparent and accountable to the public. Among these recommendations, concrete steps such as increasing participation through digital technologies, including groups without internet access, appointing a special UN representative on behalf of civil society, and declaring an annual ‘Civil Society Day’ stand out.
In times of crisis, it makes sense for civil society to come to the fore not only as an oppositional but also as a constructive and transformative actor. Today, through digital platforms, civil society organizations around the world are developing solutions not only locally but also on a global scale. For example, multi-stakeholder initiatives in areas such as climate justice, digital rights or migrant protection can expand states’ room for action and make public policies more participatory. These examples show that international organizations such as the UN can also be restructured in deeper cooperation with civil society.
These recommendations are not only technical adjustments, but also a social response to the legitimacy crisis of the system. For an organization such as the UN to become more engaged with the people means rebuilding not only inter-state relations but also solidarity between peoples. Moreover, structural proposals such as making the UNHRC membership elections competitive and limiting the veto power have the potential to increase the effectiveness and accountability of the institutions.
Another issue that should not be overlooked is how the symbolic and at the same time strategically important position of UN Secretary-General is determined. The civil society campaign ‘1 for 8 billion’ emphasizes the need for a more open, inclusive and merit-based process.[5] The call for a woman with feminist values to be appointed to this position, which has always been held by men, is noteworthy not only in the context of gender equality but also in terms of the UN’s adaptation to the changing world.
In conclusion, this process shows that the international system has reached an important threshold. At a time when the great powers are becoming more and more insular and addressing global problems in a manner limited to national interests, the principle of multilateralism is taking heavy blows. However, this crisis also brings with it an opportunity for transformation. The reforms proposed by civil society can help realize this transformation in a more inclusive, just and democratic way. Therefore, making the UN the home not only of states but also of peoples and civil society can be one of the most important steps towards a peaceful and solidary order of the future.
[1] Firmin, Andrew. “Civil Society’s Reform Vision Gains Urgency as the USA Abandons UN Institutions.” Global Issues, https://www.globalissues.org/news/2025/04/02/39495, (Accessed Date: 06.04.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
