Willful Isolation
During Trump’s second presidential term, the US has adopted isolationist policies, one of the most significant being the cessation of financial and logistical aid to global health institutions.
During Donald Trump’s second presidential term, the United States has adopted isolationist policies, one of the most significant being the cessation of financial and logistical aid to global health institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
These policies, justified under the “America First” slogan, mark a stark departure from the post-Cold War role the U.S. has played as a “benevolent hegemon” supporting international institutions. Not only do they lead to America’s diplomatic isolation, but they also weaken U.S. global hegemony, strategic influence, and soft power in the long run.
Since the establishment of the United Nations and its affiliated institutions, the United States has been the largest financial and logistical contributor to global programs. For instance, before Trump’s second term, the U.S. funded approximately 30% of global health initiatives and played a crucial role in programs such as PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), which has saved over 25 million lives. However, during Trump’s second term, isolationist policies have intensified at an accelerated pace.
Decisions such as withdrawing from the WHO again and cutting its funding entirely, drastically reducing USAID’s budget while dismissing over 95% of its staff, imposing a 90-day suspension on foreign aid, and reviewing all assistance programs to align with the “America First” agenda have had profound implications. Additionally, funding for sexual and reproductive health programs, including the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has been terminated due to domestic ideological considerations.
The new administration in Washington, D.C., interprets these policies as measures to “eliminate waste” and “protect American interests.” However, one must ask: Are these claims merely a façade for domestic political objectives, such as securing conservative voter support?
The executive orders of the new White House occupant will undoubtedly have lasting consequences for the future of the United States. The final destination of Trump’s runaway train is the erosion of America’s short-term and long-term hegemony in the global order.
The financial aid cuts will have immediate and devastating effects on global institutions and the countries reliant on them. Organizations like the WHO and USAID, which are heavily dependent on U.S. funding, will lose their capacity to respond to international crises, including pandemics such as AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, as well as humanitarian disasters like famine in Sudan or the plight of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. For instance, defunding PEPFAR could endanger the lives of millions in sub-Saharan Africa, a region where over 50% of health aid comes from the U.S.
Beyond humanitarian concerns, these policies also damage U.S. diplomatic relations with dependent nations. The negative reactions from the United Nations and traditional U.S. allies, such as the European Union—which has labeled these policies “irresponsible”—reflect the declining legitimacy of America as a global leader. Moreover, these actions could benefit U.S. geopolitical rivals like China, which is filling the vacuum left by the U.S. through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, particularly in Africa and Asia.
In the long run, these policies will have even deeper implications for U.S. hegemony and soft power. According to Joseph Nye’s theory of soft power, a nation’s international influence depends on its ability to shape global values and norms through tools such as humanitarian aid and public diplomacy. Cutting financial support for global institutions tarnishes America’s image as a “benevolent hegemon” and diminishes global trust in the U.S. as a reliable partner—especially among developing countries that rely heavily on American aid.
Furthermore, these decisions are likely to lead to U.S. diplomatic isolation in international forums. For example, withdrawing from the WHO could reduce America’s influence in global decision-making, allowing other powers, such as the European Union or China, to step in. Geopolitically, this shift weakens the liberal world order that the U.S. has led since World War II. China, as a key competitor, will seize this opportunity to expand its influence, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, where its infrastructure projects and humanitarian aid efforts are increasing.
The pressing question remains: Do “America First” policies genuinely serve the country’s long-term interests and its citizens? While the Trump administration argues that these measures “protect American interests,” in reality, they may save financial resources in the short term but jeopardize global influence and diplomatic alliances, which hold far greater value than monetary costs in the long run.
Moreover, the cessation of U.S. financial and logistical aid to global organizations will have significant repercussions—both domestically for future administrations in Washington and internationally for global mechanisms and America’s allies. Reversing isolationist policies and restoring the United States’ role as a respected and trusted global leader in health and humanitarian affairs will be a significant challenge for Trump’s successors. It will require targeted, well-monitored aid programs and strengthened public diplomacy to rebuild America’s tarnished global image.
In the near future, international organizations will be forced to seek alternative funding sources, such as increased contributions from the European Union, Japan, and wealthy Gulf nations, as well as enhanced collaboration with the private sector to compensate for budget deficits. Meanwhile, U.S. allies, including G7 members, will likely play a more active role in global institutions to prevent a leadership vacuum left by the U.S.
Trump’s second-term financial aid cuts to global and health institutions have both short-term and long-term consequences for America’s global standing. In the short term, these policies reduce U.S. legitimacy and weaken the capacity of international institutions to respond to major crises. In the long term, such decisions will lead to diplomatic isolation, a decline in soft power, and the erosion of U.S. hegemony—ultimately creating an opening for rivals like China and Russia.
Moreover, the tarnished reputation and lost legitimacy of the United States will be a burden for future American administrations. Reclaiming the country’s leadership position in international organizations such as the United Nations, G7, and G20 will be a challenging inheritance left by Trump’s second term—one that future U.S. presidents will have to work tirelessly to rebuild in the eyes of the global public.
Dr. Sara Neumann is a political scientist and freelance writer who specializes in international relations, security studies, and Middle East politics. She holds a PhD in Political Science from Humboldt University of Berlin, where she wrote her dissertation on the role of regional powers in the Syrian conflict. She is a regular contributor to various media outlets like Eurasia Review. She also teaches courses on international relations and Middle East politics at Humboldt University of Berlin and other academic institutions.