In early January 2026, the United States announced a major shift in how it engages with the international system: a Presidential Memorandum directing withdrawal from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties.
If you live in a large country with deep domestic capacity, this can be framed as “reprioritizing.”
If you live in a small island state in the Pacific like Fiji – it can feel like the floor moved under your feet.
This article isn’t a partisan argument. It’s a discussion about trade-offs: sovereignty vs cooperation, self-reliance vs dependence, and national priorities vs global responsibilities.
What happened (and what it includes)
The White House described the move as withdrawing from international bodies “contrary to the interests of the United States,” following a review process initiated earlier.
Multiple outlets report this withdrawal covers a wide range of entities, including UN-linked bodies as well as non-UN international groups, and includes high-profile exits tied to climate governance such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(For readers who want a simple explainer and list-style coverage, outlets have published breakdowns of the “66” claim and categories involved. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/8/which-are-the-66-global-organisations-the-us-is-leaving-under-trump)
The part many people don’t want to admit: the “family of 10” logic
Here’s the simplest way to explain why many Americans support this type of policy:
Imagine you’re supporting a household of 10. Your own home is deteriorating – repairs aren’t happening, bills are piling up, the kids are struggling. But you keep helping other households first. Eventually your family asks:
“Why are we sacrificing our stability while our own needs are ignored?”
That frustration is real. And it becomes stronger when people believe:
- government spending is inefficient,
- corruption (or ideological agendas) are prioritized over outcomes,
- leaders care more about international reputation than domestic quality of life.
Whether you agree with the U.S. decision or not, it’s not hard to see the political fuel behind it. Even mainstream reporting framed it as a continued retreat from multilateral cooperation, justified by the administration as an “American interests” priority.
The Pacific reality: dependence is a vulnerability, not a strategy
Now flip the lens.
In the Pacific and especially in smaller economies donations, grants, and external technical support often act like lifelines, not supplements.
That dependence has side effects:
- national planning shifts toward donor priorities,
- institutions become built around “project funding cycles,”
- local capability grows slower than it should,
- governments and communities start assuming outside rescue is normal.
So when a major donor pulls back, it doesn’t just reduce “extra help.” It can destabilize:
- programs,
- staffing,
- NGOs,
- public service initiatives,
- and long-term development pipelines.
This is why: Pacific nations must push harder toward self-sufficiency, not because partnerships are bad, but because dependence is strategically dangerous.
Partnerships should accelerate growth – not replace it.
Where “US First” becomes ethically messy: speed, leverage, and collateral damage
Even if you accept the logic of reprioritizing, the execution matters.
1) Abrupt exits create real harm
International engagement isn’t just “global politics.” It’s jobs, research, coordination, and program continuity. Sudden cuts can mean:
- people losing livelihoods,
- services shrinking,
- institutions collapsing faster than governments can adapt.
That “collateral damage” typically hits ordinary people first – not elites.
2) Power imbalance becomes pressure
Some countries may feel forced to align with U.S. demands to keep support.
This is where “protecting your people” can slip into coercion. In global politics, aid and access often function as leverage. When the biggest players change terms, smaller states don’t get equal negotiating power.
3) Cutting global spending doesn’t guarantee less corruption
Another uncomfortable truth: pulling funds from international bodies does not automatically mean money is now clean, well-managed, and domestically invested.
A government can reduce “external waste” and still have:
- internal patronage,
- inefficient procurement,
- politically-driven allocations.
So even supporters of the shift should keep one eye open: does this create better outcomes, or just a different spending map?
The hard lesson the Pacific can choose to learn early
If a country’s long-term plan depends on donors staying generous forever, it’s not a plan – it’s a gamble.
For the Pacific, the practical path forward isn’t isolation. It’s self-sufficiency with partnerships:
- build local skills that outlast projects,
- shift from grant dependence to exportable services,
- strengthen regional trade and shared infrastructure,
- invest in digital economies (remote services, niche platforms, education tech),
- improve governance transparency so investment grows.
And for donors (including the U.S.), the healthiest model isn’t endless funding. It’s:
- capacity transfer,
- measurable outcomes,
- clear exit strategies,
- and partnership terms that respect sovereignty.
I’ll say it plainly:
- I understand where the U.S. decision is coming from.
- I also think the consequences for smaller countries can be severe and unfair when done abruptly.
- Pacific dependence is a structural weakness, and this moment should be a wake-up call.
- “US First” is not automatically wrong but it can become bullying when power is used without guardrails.
You can hold two truths at once:
- The U.S. has a duty to its citizens first.
- The world (and the Pacific) will feel the shock, and it will be painful.
The real question isn’t “who’s right?”
It’s what do we build next so small countries aren’t one policy change away from crisis?
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are my own, formed from the information and perspectives I have been exposed to at this point in time. They are shared as part of an open discussion and reflection, not as definitive conclusions. The broader context, motivations, and implications behind these decisions may be more complex and may evolve as more information becomes available.
