The Trump administration this year launched a review of U.S. participation across a wide range of international organizations. This kind of 360-degree assessment can be invaluable, and in the case of some organizations it’s probably overdue. For example, UN bodies that scrutinize human rights should not be led by representatives of countries with widely-criticized human rights records, and this will inevitably affect U.S. support.
However, the United States has long benefited from taking a leadership role in international organizations that are critical to advancing standards relevant to international business. American interests are best represented when U.S. officials vigorously press for priorities established by the White House and Congress to be adopted by these international bodies.
Further, the cost of withdrawing from or defunding key international organizations could be high for American business and U.S. interests more broadly. American businesses depend on international markets, exporting trillions of dollars’ worth of goods and services and earning trillions more via international investments—and these revenues fund jobs, R&D, and taxes at home. Ceding leadership in international organizations that in many cases set the rules of the road for international business would place American companies at a disadvantage.
Ensuring international standards reflect U.S. perspectives
International organizations by their nature reflect the views of a wide range of governments, and countries that do not share our goals or values have a voice in many of these. If Washington stays silent—or worse yet, doesn’t show up—these organizations will take positions and actions that could reflect the ambitions of strategic adversaries. Ensuring that these international standards reflect U.S. perspectives is important, even when these standards are not adopted domestically.
For these reasons, it is imperative that the United States retain its leadership role in—and that Congress continue to appropriate funding for—key international organizations. Consider the following examples:
TheOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an important multilateral forum for advanced economies to develop consensus-based standards that align with American priorities. The OECD has no power to alter U.S. law or regulations, but many countries—including those currently going through the accession process, like Brazil, Indonesia, and several others—incorporate OECD-developed standards directly into national legislation. American interests are well served by the United States keeping its seat at the head of the OECD decision-making table to ensure respect for U.S. tax sovereignty, prerogatives on digital and AI rules, and other fronts. In the last few months alone, U.S. Treasury delegates to the OECD-G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS have made significant progress toward rationalizing the so-called “Pillar Two” global minimum tax regime—an urgent priority of the U.S. business community. More broadly, strong U.S. leadership at the OECD can help deliver greater certainty and stability for the global economy while enhancing growth and investment in the United States and beyond. The International Labor Organization (ILO) is another important venue where sovereign nations—as well as employer and worker organizations from each member nation—negotiate agreements that directly impact the international operations of American companies even when the United States elects not to ratify them. The ILO allows for direct input from the U.S. business community (as does the OECD), which has helped steer the group toward more pro-growth and pro-job creation policy positions. Here too, withdrawing from the ILO or cutting funding would deprive the U.S. government and U.S. business of a seat at the table and would likely result in more heavy-handed standard-setting that could harm U.S. business and other international interests. The UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) has been the launchpad for agreements that significantly impact the ability of U.S. companies to sell products in overseas markets. Examples include the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), as well as the ongoing negotiations for a new global plastics pollution agreement. Foreign governments and companies often leverage these agreements to protect their own industries and promote their own domestic policies globally, at times to the detriment of the U.S. manufacturing base. It is essential that the United States remain engaged as the next UNEA is scheduled for December 2025. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) plays a critical role in shaping health policy and procurement standards across the Western Hemisphere, impacting the ability of U.S. manufacturers of healthcare goods to operate in Latin American and Caribbean markets. U.S. leadership at PAHO is essential to ensure that its frameworks align with innovation-driven, value-based healthcare principles rather than outdated price-control mechanisms. Withdrawing from or defunding PAHO would cede influence to countries that may prioritize short-term cost-cutting over long-term efficiency and health outcomes, ultimately harming U.S. industry competitiveness and regional health security. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) develops standards and regulations shaping how food and agriculture are regulated worldwide. These standards influence border inspections, labeling, and safety standards. In many developing countries, FAO standards serve as the default baseline for compliance. For these reasons, U.S. participation is essential to maintaining respect for science-based norms and avoiding the creation of standards that disadvantage American exporters. FAO also administers the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) and International Plant Protection Commission (IPPC), which ensure international food safety and plant health standards are based on science—which in turn limits non-tariff barriers to trade and boosts U.S. agricultural exports. The World Trade Organization (WTO) upholds the rules-based trading system under which 70% of trade is exchanged between its 164 member states. American companies rely every day on the dozens of international agreements it oversees, which prohibit discrimination against American businesses, bar disguised barriers to trade, and keep overseas markets much more open to U.S. exports than they were in the pre-WTO era. In the past 15 years, the WTO has added to this rulebook with agreements to streamline customs procedures and reduce trade costs; open foreign government procurement markets to U.S. companies; and bar the illegal fishing that is depleting global fish stocks. Today, the WTO is the key forum for pushing back against the handful of countries seeking to impose import duties on electronic transmissions, which would disproportionately harm American companies. The WTO is far from perfect and needs reform, but cutting funding or withdrawing will only strengthen the hand of countries seeking to undermine U.S. trade interests.
As the old saying goes, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. The Chamber urges the Administration and Congress to continue to defend U.S. business interests by leading in—and funding—these and other key international organizations.
More from our International DivisionAbout the author
John G. Murphy
John Murphy directs the U.S. Chamber’s advocacy relating to international trade and investment policy and regularly represents the Chamber before Congress, the administration, foreign governments, and the World Trade Organization.