What Happens to U.S. Funding After Withdrawing from International Organizations

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States owes the United Nations over $4 billion in unpaid bills. Now the administration is moving to withdraw from dozens of international organizations entirely, setting off a tangled web of money owed, budget rules, and legal steps that will take years to untangle.

When dealing with money Congress has appropriated, treaties the Senate ratified decades ago, and organizations that have spent funds based on U.S. commitments, withdrawal is not immediate.

Congressional Appropriations and Constitutional Constraints

Congress holds control over spending. When lawmakers pass an appropriations bill allocating specific amounts to specific programs, the chief executive cannot simply ignore those allocations.

Appropriations language that says funds “shall” be spent at certain levels cannot be ignored. Doing so violates a law that prevents improper spending, which prohibits agencies from spending more than appropriated but requires them to spend appropriated funds as Congress directs.

This creates a genuine constitutional standoff. The chief executive directs withdrawal. Congress has appropriated funds for those same organizations. Who wins?

Historically, Congress’s control over spending has prevailed. But that does not mean the administration will not try to work around it.

The Impoundment Tool: Freezing Spending

The administration has one tool available: a 1974 law that lets presidents freeze spending. The law allows presidents to propose requests to cancel spending—permanent reductions in budget authority. The chief executive submits a special message to Congress explaining the rationale, and Congress has 45 days to consider it. If Congress does not act within that period, the funds must be released for spending.

The catch: Congress has to decline to act. If either chamber objects—or if appropriations committees simply schedule hearings that prevent a vote—the cancellation fails and the money flows.

Some in the administration appear to be betting on congressional inaction. If they can submit cancellation proposals during periods of distraction or division, they might succeed in freezing funds long enough to create facts on the ground. Organizations that go months without expected payments may have to close programs or lay off staff, making it harder to restart operations even if Congress eventually forces the money through.

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont has already objected, noting that neither the White House nor State Department consulted Congress despite these organizations enjoying bipartisan support for decades. Several committee chairs have signaled they will examine whether the administration properly followed impoundment procedures.

Treaty Obligations: Legal Withdrawal Requirements

Most of these organizations exist because America signed treaties creating them, and the Senate ratified those treaties.

The international agreement that governs how countries leave treaties dictates withdrawal procedures for international agreements. It provides that withdrawal must occur “in conformity with the provisions of the treaty.” In other words, if an organization’s charter says you need to give 30 days’ notice and pay final bills, you have to do that. You cannot announce you are done and stop paying.

Most charters include withdrawal clauses with specific procedures. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, for instance, requires parties to pay contributions according to its financial rules. Any withdrawal notice must follow procedural timelines specified in the convention itself. During that notice period, the legal argument goes, the U.S. remains bound to make required payments.

The administration would argue that the chief executive possesses the power to start leaving a treaty on its own as a matter of foreign affairs. That is probably true—the Supreme Court has suggested as much in past cases. But that power does not extend to refusing to pay money Congress has appropriated for treaty obligations during required notice periods.

History suggests these exits take time. During that time, money keeps flowing.

Redirecting Funds to Bilateral Programs

The administration’s stated plan is to redirect funds toward direct country-to-country aid—government-to-government cooperation and partnerships with private sector actors and faith-based organizations. This represents a fundamental shift in how the U.S. conducts development assistance and global health work.

Rather than working through organizations with many countries involved where decision-making is shared and the U.S. has one vote among dozens, direct country-to-country programs allow the U.S. to directly control how assistance is delivered and to which countries. The trade-off: this type of assistance often costs more to administer, reaches fewer people per dollar, and loses the coordinating efficiency that organizations with many countries involved provide.

Replacement funding does not materialize instantaneously. Other countries cannot simply double their contributions to fill the gap. The result: in many countries, programs close, services are delayed, vulnerable populations lose access to critical care.

For example, America redirects funding away from UNICEF’s global child vaccination program and instead funds direct country-to-country vaccination programs in select countries. Fewer children in non-prioritized countries receive vaccines. Countries aligned with U.S. priorities get enhanced programs. Others lose access entirely.

At the spending level, this reallocation involves moving money from one program to another—shifting appropriated funds from one purpose to another. Some authority to move money is automatic. Other shifts require notifying Congress. The administration would likely assert it possesses sufficient authority to undertake this shifting without explicit congressional permission. Congress could object through the committee process, but that takes time.

Cascade Effects: Program Closures and Service Losses

These organizations operate programs in dozens of countries, often in partnership with nongovernmental organizations, multilateral development banks, and government agencies. Funding halts, and these programs cannot continue—they must be scaled back, modified, or eliminated.

For U.S. nongovernmental organizations that receive grants passed down from larger organizations from UN agencies, the consequences are substantial. Many NGOs working on development, humanitarian, and health issues structure their funding by receiving grants from organizations with many countries involved like UNICEF, UNHCR, or the World Food Programme. These organizations’ spending plans are reduced due to halted U.S. contributions, and they reduce grants to NGO partners.

This creates a cascade: smaller NGOs that depended on grants from larger organizations lose core funding and must close programs or offices. The ripple effects extend to state and local governments that participate in international agreements, universities and research institutions that collaborate with partners, and cities with sister city relationships.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change programs that support developing countries in implementing climate mitigation and adaptation strategies will lose U.S. voluntary contributions. UN Women’s programs supporting gender equality initiatives across the UN system will be scaled back. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which coordinates humanitarian response in crisis situations, will lose U.S. funding.

These are maternal health clinics that close. Vaccination programs that stop. Climate adaptation projects that never start.

Diplomatic Influence and Long-Term Costs

Beyond immediate financial implications, the withdrawal carries diplomatic consequences. America withdraws from organizations with many countries involved, and it cedes influence to other powers who remain engaged and committed.

China, Russia, and European Union nations are actively participating in these organizations, shaping their policies, directing their resources, building relationships through them. The U.S. steps back, and other powers step forward.

This becomes particularly acute in organizations focused on emerging issues like artificial intelligence governance, climate technology expectations, and digital trade rules. UNESCO adopted the first global standards on the ethics of artificial intelligence—something the U.S. was positioned to influence as a major contributor. With the U.S. withdrawing, organizations like UNESCO will increasingly reflect the perspectives and priorities of remaining major contributors like China and European nations.

America will find itself less able to shape rules and expectations that affect American economic interests. In the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, withdrawal means the U.S. has less say in how climate negotiations proceed, how climate finance mechanisms are structured, how climate technologies are shared among nations. Other countries will continue negotiating within this system, but without U.S. participation and without U.S. financial contributions shaping the organization’s priorities.

Former U.S. ambassadors and officers have consistently argued that U.S. participation in these organizations generates diplomatic access and influence that exceed the cost of membership dues. America is absent from a decision-making table, and it cannot advance American interests in real time—it can only react after other countries have set policies.

Timeline for Payment Cessation

For organizations with charters that specify notice periods—typically 30 days to one year—the legal obligation to provide notice means required dues remain technically due during the notice period, even if the U.S. has announced its intention to withdraw. The State Department would need to calculate when each organization’s notice period expires and when withdrawal becomes effective.

In practical terms, the State Department cannot immediately halt all payments. It can immediately halt new fund transfers while managing the process of ensuring that promised and committed funds are addressed according to applicable law. Some voluntary contributions can cease immediately—if the U.S. has not yet signed a contribution agreement for a particular program, the State Department can simply choose not to sign.

But for required payments to UN organizations, the process takes longer and requires more careful legal maneuvering.

The most likely scenario: the administration pursues a mixed strategy. Immediately cease new voluntary contributions and discretionary programs. Initiate formal withdrawal procedures for organizations with charters that specify notice periods. Attempt to maximize the use of spending powers to freeze or cancel approved spending where legally possible.

For some organizations, this process could stretch across months or even years, creating a period of extended uncertainty during which organizations cannot reliably plan their programs or spending. That uncertainty itself becomes a form of reduction—organizations that cannot count on funding must scale back operations preemptively, even if the money eventually arrives.

Constitutional Precedent for Future Disputes

The financial mechanisms through which the withdrawal proceeds will establish precedents for future disputes between the executive and legislative branches over engagement abroad.

If the administration successfully halts payments despite congressional appropriations, it will have established an expansive view of presidential authority—one that allows the chief executive to override Congress’s control over spending by invoking foreign affairs powers. Future presidents of any party could cite this precedent to refuse spending on programs they oppose, as long as they frame the refusal in terms of foreign affairs.

If Congress successfully forces continued spending on organizations the administration opposes, it will have reasserted its constitutional control over spending and established that appropriations authority trumps presidential directives when the two conflict. That would constrain future presidents’ ability to unilaterally redirect assistance and engagement funding.

Either outcome reshapes the future balance of power over American foreign affairs. The question is not about money. It is about who decides where American money goes when the chief executive and Congress disagree.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.