On January 7, 2026, the White House announced its decision to withdraw the United States from more than 66 UN bodies and abandon a number of other international obligations.
Dramatic Withdrawal from International Organizations
In response, a flurry of bodies, including the UN Population Fund (UNPFA), the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rose in protest, as reported in Kenya’s Star Newspaper article published on January 15, 2026. The aforementioned announcement from the White House shows that Washington no longer needs to peddle its unsolicited influence through these ‘intergovernmental’ bodies, which are disproportionately influenced by a few through funding.
Otherwise, suggesting that the US administration has suddenly forgotten the importance of the functions of UNPFA, UNFCCC, or IPCCC (controlling population or convening countries to address climate change) is incredible. Trump’s feeling the need to abandon and defund these bodies, which the US had voluntarily created or walked into, shows that they are no longer essential to Washington.
The Global South should investigate the real functions of these bodies and whether they have been helpful. It will be imprudent for African and Global South leaders to rush to take over these oversized bureaucracies or find alternative funding before investigating whether the existing system has meaningfully served their best interests.
Global South countries’ failure to manage their social, health, and economic needs while allowing foreign interference through international/intergovernmental bodies opens them up for continued neocolonialism. The central issue is their reliance on externally managed programs in critical sectors, which undermines national autonomy and perpetuates dependence. Trump’s withdrawal from over 66 international bodies should prompt Africans to reconsider why their governments yield control of key functions to foreign bodies. The heart of the argument is that by ceding responsibility for essential areas such as healthcare provision, fertility management, and resource development to Western-led organizations (often under controversial pretexts), Global South nations erode their own capacity and invite external influence. Trump’s move illustrates the risks of dependency, emphasizing that if influential donors quickly withdraw, local governments are left exposed and must examine whether these partnerships serve their true interests.
Who Elected International Bodies? Who Set Their Priorities?
One notable risk associated with said intergovernmental or international bodies is that they have co-opted functions of states and local governments in Africa without any democratic mandate or oversight. In the global south, they stay away from attempting to meet practical needs such as roads, education facilities, or factories, but exist for their own sake while prioritizing.
US priorities such as contraceptives and sex education, as will be seen later. The earlier-mentioned article from the Star featured experts and advocates warning that Trump’s move would adversely affect Kenya’s position as a key host of the UN’s regional and global operations, hence casting these bodies as existing solely to boost Kenya’s position and not serving people’s needs. These experts and advocates spared no attention to whether people would miss out on services supposedly offered by these bodies, before reminding them that Kenya is host to the UN office in Nairobi (UNON), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and UN-Habitat, the only UN headquarters in Africa and the Global South. They added that the Kenyan capital also hosts UN’s regional offices such as UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, WFP, and IOM, among others, but failed to explain how Kenyans or Africans are served any better by the presence of these bodies. Since the presence of these bodies is not associated with the provision of services to Africans, some may wonder whether there should be any pride in hosting bureaucracies that exist to advance Washington’s interests or boost the standing of the host government. The UN and similar bodies have become mere placeholders without democratically mandated functions or oversight mechanisms.
An article published in the Guardian in August 2025 can help to shed light on the real work that these international bodies offer. The article reported how the US had resolved to incinerate about $9.7 million worth of contraceptives, that were nearing their expiry date and reportedly destined for African countries, including Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, Zambia, and the DRC, without any evidence that populations of these African countries thought that contraceptives were a priority. The destroyed shipment was to be delivered through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the latter of which receives funding from the UNFPA. The reason why the US government thought contraceptives were the priority in African countries, and not roads, bridges, factories, or agricultural technology, remains unknown and shows how these intergovernmental bodies advance donors’ narrow-minded interests. Also, it is curious how African governments outsource or allow the US, a country with domineering ambitions, to implement programs meant to influence their nations’ fertility and hence future.
Also, the US is allied to the UK, and both colonial powers harbor plans to undermine African populations to dominate them and their resources. The Guardian article proceeded to report that America’s destruction would lead to 174,000 ‘unintended’ pregnancies, a questionably rounded figure, that is equally dubious. It is impossible to determine the exact number of unplanned pregnancies that can result, not only due to the complex biology involved but also because those involved have access to other fertility control approaches. Equally dubious is how the Guardian thought that expiring contraceptives would have prevented such pregnancies. Nonetheless, Washington’s actions of burning contraceptives food and withdrawing support for programs that were billed as being meant to help the Global South countries should come as an unmistakable reminder for African countries to take back control and work to achieve their population’s needs.
Case for Enhancing National Sovereignty
Kenya, with an economy of over $130 billion in 2025 and being a middle-income economy, has no justification not to manage all its health and social services. Health and reproductive health services must be provided by the state and be oriented towards the population’s needs and the country’s long-term interests. The country should orient management of its environmental resources towards achieving sustainability for future generations as opposed to heeding the alarmist and disempowering agenda driven by IPCC, which criminalizes industrializational needs of the Global South by labeling them as dangerous for the earth.
Trump’s placing the interests of his backers first shows the Global South countries that they should not rely on so-called international solidarity, as it does not exist. Instead, poor and developing countries should manage their populations, resources, and energy resources, only relying on mutual partnership with like-minded countries. Africa and the Global South need to reorient their development model towards meeting the needs of their population and only maintain relations based on mutual respect. Africa’s accepting countries with colonial ambitions to co-opt sound governance and service institutions with intrusive international bodies will lead to worsening human development figures and further perpetuate neocolonialism.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
