An interesting question.

When did Donald Trump withdraw America from the United Nations, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of that decision for the American people and businesses?

GROK answers…

President Donald Trump has not fully withdrawn the United States from the United Nations (UN) as a whole, but he has taken actions to withdraw from specific UN agencies and councils, particularly during his first term (2017–2021) and early in his second term (starting January 2025).

Based on available information, I’ll outline the key actions related to UN withdrawals, focusing on the most recent and significant moves, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages for American people and businesses. I’ll draw on the provided web results for specifics and maintain a critical perspective on the establishment narrative.

🤔 When Did Trump Withdraw the U.S. from UN Bodies?

1️⃣ First Term (2017–2021):

- UNESCO (October 2017): The U.S. withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, citing anti-Israel bias and financial arrears concerns.

- UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC, June 2018): The U.S. exited due to perceived anti-American and anti-Israel bias, as well as the council’s inclusion of countries with poor human rights records.

- World Health Organization (WHO, Announced July 2020): Trump notified the UN of intent to withdraw, effective July 2021, criticizing WHO’s handling of COVID-19 and alleged pro-China bias. This was reversed by President Joe Biden in January 2021.

2️⃣ Second Term (2025):

- UN Human Rights Council (February 4, 2025): Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the UNHRC, consistent with his first-term stance, citing anti-American bias.

- UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA, February 4, 2025): The same executive order halted funding to UNRWA, which aids Palestinian refugees, due to claims of inefficiency and bias.

- WHO (January 20, 2025): Trump signed an executive order to withdraw from the WHO, revoking Biden’s 2021 reversal, with the process set to complete in January 2026 (due to the one-year notification period).

- UNESCO Review (February 2025): An executive order mandated a 90-day review of U.S. membership in UNESCO, potentially leading to withdrawal.

- Broader UN Review (February 4, 2025): Trump ordered a 180-day review of all U.S. involvement in multilateral organizations and treaties, including the UN, to assess potential full withdrawal, though no complete exit from the UN has occurred as of July 2025. No evidence confirms a full U.S. withdrawal from the UN itself, despite proposals like the “Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act” introduced in December 2023 by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Chip Roy, which has not been enacted.

🤔 Advantages for American People and Businesses?

1️⃣ Cost Savings:

- American People: The U.S. contributes significantly to the UN budget (e.g., ~22% of the regular budget and ~27% of peacekeeping, roughly $18 billion annually per some claims). Withdrawing from specific agencies like UNRWA or WHO could reduce taxpayer costs, freeing up funds for domestic priorities like infrastructure or healthcare.

- Businesses: Reduced UN funding might lower federal spending, potentially easing tax burdens on businesses, though the impact would depend on how savings are reallocated.

2️⃣ Sovereignty and Policy Autonomy:

- American People: Withdrawal from bodies like the WHO or UNHRC is argued to protect U.S. sovereignty by avoiding international regulations (e.g., WHO’s pandemic response mandates) that could conflict with domestic policies. This aligns with “America First” priorities, emphasizing national control over health, human rights, and cultural policies.

- Businesses: Avoiding UN frameworks like UNESCO’s cultural regulations or WHO’s health guidelines could reduce compliance costs for industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals, tech) subject to international standards.

3️⃣ Addressing Perceived Bias:

- American People: Many view the UNHRC and UNRWA as biased against U.S. interests or allies (e.g., Israel). Withdrawal signals a rejection of platforms seen as hostile, potentially boosting national pride and diplomatic leverage.

- Businesses: Companies operating in geopolitically sensitive regions (e.g., Middle East) may benefit from stronger U.S. alignment with allies like Israel, fostering more predictable trade environments.

4️⃣ Trade Leverage:

- Businesses: Trump’s broader trade policies, like tariffs to address imbalances, complement UN withdrawals by prioritizing bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks. For example, exiting the Universal Postal Union (UPU) negotiations in 2018 led to reformed shipping rules, benefiting U.S. businesses by reducing unfair advantages for foreign competitors (e.g., Chinese merchants).

🤔 Disadvantages for American People and Businesses?

1️⃣ Reduced Global Influence:

- American People: Withdrawing from UN bodies like the WHO or UNHRC diminishes U.S. influence in shaping global health, human rights, and cultural policies. This could weaken America’s ability to counter adversaries (e.g., China) in international forums, potentially affecting national security and global standing.

- Businesses: U.S. companies in sectors like pharmaceuticals or tech rely on global standards set by UN agencies (e.g., WHO’s drug approvals, UNESCO’s intellectual property frameworks). Withdrawal may reduce their influence, complicating market access or increasing compliance costs abroad.

2️⃣ Public Health Risks:

- American People: WHO withdrawal, set for January 2026, could hinder U.S. access to global disease surveillance and outbreak response systems. For example, severed CDC-WHO communications may delay responses to pandemics like avian influenza, risking American lives.

- Businesses: Health-related industries (e.g., hospitals, biotech) could face challenges without WHO’s coordinated data on global health threats, potentially disrupting supply chains or preparedness.

3️⃣ Economic Isolation:

- Businesses: Exiting UN agencies may signal U.S. isolationism, deterring international partners from trade or investment. For example, UNESCO withdrawal could limit U.S. cultural and educational exports (e.g., media, academic exchanges), affecting industries like entertainment and academia.

- American People: Reduced global cooperation may lead to fewer opportunities for international education, cultural exchange, or job markets tied to UN programs.

4️⃣ Diplomatic and Trade Backlash:

- American People: Allies reliant on UN programs (e.g., health aid via WHO, refugee support via UNRWA) may view U.S. withdrawal as abandoning global leadership, straining alliances and increasing geopolitical tensions.

- Businesses: Countries critical of U.S. withdrawals (e.g., EU nations) could impose retaliatory trade measures, affecting exporters like agriculture or manufacturing. The UN’s role in facilitating trade norms (e.g., WTO frameworks) means withdrawal could disrupt market stability.

🤔 Critical Perspective

The establishment narrative often portrays UN withdrawals as reckless, arguing they weaken global cooperation and U.S. leadership. However, this overlooks legitimate concerns about the United Nations and its past and current relationship with America and the interests of its people.

My take.

There is bias in every opinion, and mine is no different.

In a nutshell, I am wary of all large, taxpayer-funded institutions, domestic or international. The larger they are, the more wary I become 😳.

I have serious concerns about the motives of their leaders and stakeholders. I always question the claimed efficiency of their bureaucratic operations to achieve their stated missions in a cost-effective manner, and doing so without incurring elements of bias, waste, discrimination and corruption.

Notwithstanding the disadvantages of withdrawal noted by GROK, I contend that:

‘collectivism’ in all of its forms is a threat to every human individual who simply wants to go about living his or her life with a minimum of coerced supervision by complete strangers with unelected powers.

This bias explains why my readers have seen me emphasize the libertarian principles of …

1️⃣ non-aggression (including coercion),

2️⃣ respect for individual person & (justly-acquired) property rights, and the

3️⃣ freedom of informed choice (especially important in this Information Age).

INFORMED CONSENT falls under principle 3️⃣

We all saw how far over the ethical line the WHO and virtually all domestic public health authorities transgressed during Covid. Individual rights were swatted to the ground as soon as anyone tried to claim them. 🥺

So much for their claims to be “acting in the public interest“ 🤯

I prefer LLM Wisdom 🕵️‍♂️

I would trust an AI Humanoid ‘policy advisor’ over 99% of the human legislators and regulators who are employed in those public institutions.

I wonder if Donald Trump already confers with an LLM like GROK to guide his hand when signing executive orders 🤔❓