02-10-2025

Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14199 directs the United States to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), initiates a review of its membership in the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and immediately halts all funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). It also mandates a broader review of U.S. involvement in all international organizations.

Money: The order immediately freezes U.S. funding to UNRWA, which totaled $422 million in 2023. It also withholds the U.S. share of the UNHRC budget and blocks payments for past arrears to both UNRWA and the UNHRC. A review of UNESCO membership could affect future funding, which historically amounted to about $80 million per year, or 22% of the agency's budget.

Your Impact: The order's direct impact on most Americans is minimal. However, it will significantly affect millions of beneficiaries of UNRWA's humanitarian aid in the Middle East and could alter U.S. foreign policy and influence within international bodies.

Status: This is an Executive Order, signed and effective as of February 4, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Executive Order mandates several immediate actions regarding U.S. participation and funding for specific United Nations agencies. The order asserts that certain UN bodies have acted contrary to U.S. interests, leading to a reevaluation of American commitments.

Core Provisions:

  • UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): The U.S. will immediately cease participation in the UNHRC and will not seek election to the council. The office of the U.S. Representative to the UNHRC is to be terminated. Funding for the U.S. proportionate share of the UNHRC budget will be withheld.
  • UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA): All U.S. funding to UNRWA is to be stopped immediately, consistent with Public Law 118-47. The order explicitly states the U.S. will not pay any 2025 assessments or prior arrears. This halts aid that historically has been the largest contribution from any single country.
  • UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): The Secretary of State, in coordination with the UN Ambassador, must conduct a review of U.S. membership in UNESCO within 90 days. The review will assess if UNESCO supports U.S. interests and will analyze any anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization.
  • Broad Review of International Bodies: Within 180 days, the Secretary of State must review all international intergovernmental organizations and treaties the U.S. is a party to. The goal is to identify which are contrary to U.S. interests and to recommend whether the U.S. should withdraw.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to respond to certain UN agencies that have "drifted" from their mission of promoting international peace and now "act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism."

  1. To cease participation in the UNHRC, which is accused of protecting human rights abusers.
  2. To end funding for UNRWA, citing alleged infiltration by foreign terrorist organizations and the involvement of its employees in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
  3. To reevaluate membership in UNESCO due to its "failure to reform," "anti-Israel sentiment," and concerns over arrears.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Foreign Policy, Humanitarian Aid, International Relations, Human Rights.
Timeline:

  • February 4, 2025: Immediate withdrawal from UNHRC and cessation of UNRWA funding.
  • Within 90 days (by May 5, 2025): Completion of UNESCO membership review.
  • Within 180 days (by August 3, 2025): Completion of review of all international organizations and treaties.
    Scope: The order directly impacts U.S. diplomatic presence and financial contributions to specific UN agencies and sets the stage for a potential broader withdrawal from international agreements and organizations.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Post-WWII Era & UN Formation (1940s-1950s):

  • The United States was a key architect in the founding of the United Nations in 1945, with the goal of preventing future global conflicts. Americans were central to the creation of UNESCO, also in 1945.
  • UNRWA was established in 1949 to provide temporary relief to Palestinian refugees following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The U.S. has been its largest donor since 1950, contributing over $7.3 billion in total.

A History of U.S. Withdrawals and Re-engagements (1984-2023):

  • 1984: The Reagan administration withdrew from UNESCO, citing mismanagement and ideological disputes.
  • 2002-2003: The George W. Bush administration rejoined UNESCO.
  • 2006: The Bush administration initially boycotted the newly formed UN Human Rights Council.
  • 2011: The Obama administration cut funding to UNESCO after Palestine was admitted as a full member, triggering U.S. law.
  • 2018: The Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the UNHRC, citing "chronic bias" against Israel, and also formally withdrew from UNESCO.
  • 2018-2021: The Trump administration suspended funding for UNRWA.
  • 2023: The Biden administration rejoined both UNESCO and the UNHRC, citing the need to counter Chinese influence and engage in shaping international norms. It also restored funding to UNRWA.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • The order directly cites the alleged involvement of 12 UNRWA employees in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel as a primary catalyst for defunding the agency.
  • There is a stated belief that the UNHRC provides cover for human rights abusers and maintains an unfair focus on Israel.
  • The timing reflects a broader "America First" diplomatic approach that prioritizes national interests over multilateral engagement and is skeptical of international organizations perceived as bureaucratic or ideologically opposed to U.S. policy.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups receiving humanitarian aid and U.S. government employees working on these issues, but its indirect impact touches on U.S. foreign policy and global standing.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Supporters argue that taxpayers will save money by not funding organizations deemed ineffective or contrary to U.S. interests.
  • The move is presented as a strong stance in support of a key ally, Israel, and against organizations perceived as biased.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • The immediate cutoff of UNRWA funding could deepen the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the wider region, where millions rely on the agency for food, healthcare, and education.
  • U.S. withdrawal from the UNHRC may cede influence to other nations, such as China, in setting international human rights standards.

Long-term:

  • A broader U.S. withdrawal from international bodies could diminish American influence in global affairs, from setting standards on artificial intelligence to coordinating responses to health crises.
  • The instability resulting from a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East could have wider geopolitical consequences.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

  • Palestinian Refugees: Nearly 6 million registered refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria who depend on UNRWA services.
  • U.S. Government Personnel: Diplomats and staff whose roles are tied to the UNHRC will be eliminated.

Secondary Groups:

  • Humanitarian NGOs: Other aid organizations may be stretched thin trying to fill the gap left by UNRWA.
  • U.S. Allies: Nations that partner with the U.S. on global initiatives may face a less predictable and cooperative American foreign policy.

Regional Impact: The Middle East, particularly Gaza, will bear the most immediate and severe consequences of the UNRWA funding cut.

Bottom Line: While most Americans will not feel an immediate effect, this order marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy that could have long-term consequences for global stability and American influence.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "America First"

Core Stance: Generally supports withdrawing from or defunding international bodies perceived as undermining U.S. sovereignty or acting against American interests, particularly those seen as biased against Israel.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ UN agencies like UNRWA and UNHRC are fundamentally flawed, biased, and in need of radical reform or abandonment.
  • ✓ Taxpayer dollars should not fund organizations whose employees are allegedly involved in terrorism.
  • ✗ Oppose ceding U.S. authority to international bodies that do not align with American values or foreign policy goals.

Legislative Strategy: Using executive authority to enact swift changes, bypassing potential congressional debate. The order aligns with past actions and rhetoric critical of the UN.

Democratic Position: "Engagement and Reform"

Core Stance: Generally supports U.S. leadership within international organizations, using its position to reform them from the inside while upholding humanitarian commitments.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ U.S. presence in bodies like the UNHRC and UNESCO is critical to counter the influence of adversaries like China and to shape global standards.
  • ⚠️ While acknowledging the need for UNRWA reform and accountability following allegations, they argue that abruptly cutting off aid is dangerous and destabilizing for the region.
  • ✗ Withdrawing from international leadership roles weakens U.S. influence and creates a vacuum that other global powers will fill.

Legislative Strategy: Pushing back against withdrawal through congressional statements and potentially introducing legislation to restore funding, such as the proposed "UNRWA Funding Emergency Restoration Act."

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's actions are rooted in their broad constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs, as granted by Article II of the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

[Executive Authority]: The President has significant discretion in managing diplomatic relations, which includes deciding whether to participate in or fund international organizations, so long as it does not directly contradict a specific law passed by Congress. This order cites existing law (Public Law 118-47) as a basis for its funding decisions concerning UNRWA.
[Precedent]: Past presidents from both parties have withdrawn from and rejoined international agreements and organizations (e.g., UNESCO, Paris Climate Agreement), setting a strong precedent for such executive actions.
[Federalism]: This action falls squarely within the federal government's purview of foreign policy and does not intersect with powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges to this Executive Order are unlikely to succeed. The President's constitutional authority over foreign policy is well-established, and the order itself is structured to align with existing congressional appropriations law.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's decision in Executive Order 14199 to withdraw from the UNHRC and defund UNRWA."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee to express your support for the order and for a broader reevaluation of U.S. engagement with international bodies.
  • Join an Organization: Look for conservative or pro-Israel advocacy groups that are critical of the United Nations' role in the region.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14199 and work to restore funding for UNRWA and U.S. participation in the UNHRC."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that U.S. leadership in international organizations is crucial for global stability and American interests.
  • Join an Organization: Organizations like the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) and the Better World Campaign advocate for strong U.S.-UN partnerships.