“Déjà vu All Over Again”: Trump Orders US Withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council: On February 4, 2025, President Donald Trump made headlines once again, signing an executive order that would pull the United States out of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This executive order, titled “Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to all United Nations Organizations”, marks another chapter in his administration’s complex relationship with international organizations.
Trump’s directive not only eliminates U.S. participation in the UNHRC but also disbands the office of the U.S. representative to the council. The order mandates the U.S. to cease funding for the UN Human Rights Council and directs the Department of State to remove personnel dedicated to supporting U.S. representation in the UNHRC. It’s a continuation of his administration’s previous stance on global diplomatic bodies—re-evaluating America’s participation in the UN and ensuring that resources are allocated more directly to national priorities.
This move also brings with it the cessation of U.S. participation in the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), a significant aspect of the U.S.’s previous stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s clear that this isn’t just a bureaucratic shake-up; it’s an action with a global ripple effect.
The Impact on Global Diplomacy and Productivity
While these decisions are being scrutinized globally, one key element often overlooked in discussions about diplomatic withdrawal is the effect on domestic productivity. With fewer resources being funneled into international organizations, the U.S. government could refocus its priorities. It’s possible that this could translate into more efficient domestic policies and investments in sectors like defense, technology, and infrastructure, although the long-term outcomes remain uncertain.
For instance, fewer bureaucratic entanglements in global issues may provide more room for innovation within the U.S. federal agencies and a more direct approach to domestic challenges. Of course, it’s essential to keep in mind that less international cooperation might also lead to missed opportunities in areas such as global health, human rights, and humanitarian aid—sectors where the U.S. has traditionally played a significant role.
The Withdrawal’s Effect on North Korea
One of the most striking consequences of Trump’s actions could be felt in the ongoing human rights struggles in North Korea. The UNHRC has been instrumental in bringing attention to the egregious human rights violations that North Korea has been accused of committing against its own people. Since 2003, the Council has adopted resolutions every year, calling for North Korea to address widespread human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, and extrajudicial killings.
By withdrawing from the UNHRC, the U.S. may lose an important voice in pressuring North Korea to improve its record. Just this past year, the UNHRC adopted a resolution calling for accountability in North Korea, something that has been widely applauded by organizations like Human Rights Watch. It’s unclear how the absence of U.S. leadership will shape the future of this ongoing issue. However, it’s worth noting that the U.S. has traditionally been one of the strongest proponents of international human rights enforcement.
Israel’s Position and the UNHRC
Israel’s own decision to disengage from the UNHRC comes on the heels of increasingly harsh criticisms from the council. While Israel is not a full member, its status as an observer has meant that it is still subject to scrutiny from the Council. This withdrawal highlights a broader trend among nations choosing to challenge or disengage from international bodies that they perceive as biased or ineffective.
In practical terms, Israel’s stance mirrors the U.S. approach: skepticism toward international bodies that may not align with their national interests. By walking away from the UNHRC, these nations signal a preference for dealing with human rights issues outside the framework of the UN.
Trump’s History with the UNHRC
Interestingly, this recent withdrawal decision is not unprecedented. Back in June 2018, Trump’s administration made the bold move to pull out of the UNHRC, a decision that was met with both applause and criticism. The reasoning, led by then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, was that the Council had become a “cesspool of political bias,” largely driven by what Haley referred to as its anti-Israel sentiment.
This decision came at a time when Trump was actively pursuing a historic relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with the first meeting between the two occurring just a week before the U.S. pulled out of the UNHRC. While there was no direct connection between the two events, the timing was certainly remarkable, particularly considering the Council’s persistent critique of North Korea’s human rights violations.
A Second Act: The Biden Administration’s Shift
When President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, his administration quickly reversed the Trump-era withdrawal, rejoining the UNHRC within weeks. This marked a clear difference in foreign policy, particularly in terms of human rights advocacy. Under Biden, the U.S. was once again active in global discussions about human rights, which included being elected to a three-year term on the Council in 2021.
However, with Trump now resuming his leadership in 2025, the cycle has begun anew. This time, the decision to withdraw was more direct, with Trump himself signing the executive order in front of cameras, emphasizing that this was a personal decision—a shift in tone from the 2018 withdrawal, which had been announced by his diplomats. The message was clear: this was a reaffirmation of his stance on reducing U.S. participation in global governance, particularly when it conflicted with American interests.
What Does This Mean for Global Cooperation?
While it may seem that these withdrawals mark a retreat from global cooperation, they also bring with them the potential for more focused national productivity. By reducing involvement in global institutions, there could be a reinvestment of time, energy, and financial resources into domestic priorities. Whether that will translate into measurable success is yet to be seen, but it’s a shift in approach that could affect everything from international diplomacy to the prioritization of human rights initiatives.
Conclusion: Looking Ahead
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council underscores a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, one that emphasizes national interests over international cooperation. As nations like Israel and the U.S. step away from the council, the global human rights conversation will likely change. Whether this leads to more effective advocacy or less engagement remains to be seen.
Ultimately, this decision is part of a broader narrative about global diplomacy and national priorities. It’s a reminder that the way we engage with international organizations has real-world implications, not just in terms of human rights, but also in how it can impact national productivity and global influence.
Key Takeaways:
- Trump’s decision marks a return to his “America First” policy.
- The UNHRC’s role in addressing human rights violations, particularly in North Korea, may face new challenges.
- Israel’s departure highlights a broader skepticism about international organizations.
- By withdrawing, Trump aims to refocus U.S. resources on domestic priorities, but the long-term impact remains uncertain.