President Donald Trump’s latest directive to withdraw the US from 66 international organisations, including 31 UN-linked bodies, is being sold at home as a sovereignty play. However, internationally, it reads as an abdication of stewardship and, more crucially, a structural shock to a system that has relied on American underwriting for nearly eight decades. The order targets, among others, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFPA and UN Women, instructing agencies to wind down support.
Pakistan should resist the temptation to treat this as a distant theatre. For countries on the front lines, multilateralism is the essential plumbing that keeps crises from turning into collapses. The US contributes roughly 22% of the UN’s regular budget and an even larger share of peacekeeping efforts. It’s still important to anchor the debate in this reality: the costs of such contributions are trivial compared to the chaos of unmanaged crises.
The 2025 pause in US assistance has already disrupted health and protection work, with warnings that around 1.7 million people could be affected in Pakistan alone. That experience is a preview of what a wider retreat could mean as UN agencies scramble for replacement funding, trim field staff and scale back programmes.
There is also a strategic cost. A vacuum at the UN will not remain empty. China is positioned to expand its role in financing, while Russia will gladly frame US exits as proof that rules bind only the weak. Europe may try to stabilise the centre, though war spending and domestic politics limit how far it can go. This scenario will likely lead to middle-income countries bearing more costs while receiving less support, despite the harsh reality that they already pay the highest price for climate change.
Like it or not, climate diplomacy matters because adaptation failures compound fiscal stress. Similarly, UN-backed health and nutrition programmes matter because outbreaks and hunger do not respect borders.
The response should therefore be unsentimental. The Global South would have to identify which services are propped up by donor funding and ring-fence domestic resources for the essentials instead of treating them as discretionary add-ons.
Pakistan (and others in the same boat) need to diversify economic diplomacy across Europe, East Asia and the Gulf while engaging emerging funds, without assuming any single partner will replace Washington. Most important is the push for more predictable financing rules inside remaining forums so that no single contributor can pull the plug overnight.
There is also a political test here. When major powers step back, smaller states are judged by their own capacity to govern. For instance, Pakistan cannot outsource tuberculosis control, flood response or girls’ health to grants, but neither can it pretend self-reliance can be achieved through feel-good declarations.
World powers may one day rediscover that leadership is less costly than disorder, but until that point, the system is bound to run leaner and harsher. The task, then, is to adapt quickly, protect the vulnerable and navigate a reality where the safety net is thinner.
