The second Trump administration poses an existential challenge to many international organizations (IOs), putting them at risk of no longer being able to perform their core functions. Compared to the first term, the scope of America First is much wider and the speed much faster. Trump no longer sticks to IO rules and is structurally undermining the US domestic agencies that provide input for IOs. At the same time, the academic literature highlights the overwhelming resilience of IOs over the last two centuries, and the demand for IOs to address international problems remains high. The loss of US funding, membership, and input is real, but an equally important question is how IOs themselves and the other members cope with and counter this challenge. Several leaders of IOs have pro-actively stepped up and are strategizing on how to protect their organizations. In light of the imminent budget pressures, many IOs will have to downsize and potentially merge with other international institutions. IOs may thus become less central to the conduct of international relations. Yet, unless the Trump administration, in improbably collective action with China and Russia, manages to overthrow the whole postwar international system, IOs will remain relevant actors.
Policy implications
- The second attempt at America First poses a more serious challenge to many IOs, as the Trump administration no longer respects legal procedure and also erodes domestic inputs for many IOs. IO policy-makers should develop contingencies in case US expertise, funding and input suddenly fall away.
- Because America First 2.0 differs, IO policy-makers can no longer rely on survival strategies they used during the first-term, such as hunkering down, reasoning the Trump, or procedural foot-dragging. They need to urgently rethink their response to the Trump administration and pro-actively reduce dependencies on the United States.
- It is important for academics, observers and policy-makers to not write off formal IOs all to quickly in light of the challenges posed by America First. IOs tend to be resilient and they provide also a stable institutionalized framework for an era of power transitions in international relations. Rather, they should clarify how precisely America First may weaken individual IOs and how those IOs should respond.
- Most IOs will have to adapt to the new reality and will have to do with a smaller footprint. While many IO leaders understand this, most of the other member states have yet to adjust. It is important that officials and diplomats across major member states do so rapidly and support reforms proposed by IO leaders.
- Reorganization may be inevitable for many IOs under budgetary pressures, but it is also important that IOs pay considerable attention to how they can retain quality officials since staff is critical for their vitality and survival. Ringfencing political appointees at the expense of junior staff or massive reallocations will likely be detrimental to IO vitality.
Photo by Sawyer Sutton