Trump's 'America First' era: Are global institutions losing relevance?

World leaders are increasingly questioning the relevance of major global institutions, including the UN, WHO, WTO, and climate summits such as the Paris Agreement, in a multipolar world

Once the cornerstone of global governance, institutions like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Health Organization (WHO) now face mounting criticism from world leaders who see them as outdated and ineffective. As power shifts from a post- World War II bipolar world to an increasingly multipolar landscape, these organisations struggle to enforce their mandates.

 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently criticised the UN, calling it ineffective in addressing contemporary global challenges.

 

“The international organisations that were created have become almost irrelevant; there is no reform in them. Institutions like the UN cannot play their role. People in the world who do not care about laws and rules are doing everything; no one is able to stop them,” the Prime Minister said.

 

His comments reflect a broader sentiment among world leaders who argue that these organisations have struggled to adapt to evolving geopolitical and economic realities.

 

In 2018, Donald Trump threatened to pull the US out of the WTO over alleged unfair treatment. By 2020, he criticised the WHO for lacking transparency and being influenced by China. In February 2025, he ordered the US withdrawal from multiple UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, citing bias. Days later, on January 20, he signed an executive order to exit the Paris Climate Agreement under his “Putting America First” initiative.

 

Purpose of international institutions

 

International organisations were established to promote peace, cooperation, and economic stability in a world that had witnessed devastating conflicts. The UN, founded in 1945, was created to prevent future wars, maintain global peace, and facilitate cooperation on humanitarian and economic issues after the dissolution of the League of Nations, which failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War.

 

The WTO, established in 1995, was designed to regulate global trade, resolve disputes, and ensure free and fair trade among nations. The WHO, created in 1948, is responsible for coordinating global health initiatives, responding to pandemics, and improving healthcare standards.

 

Climate negotiations have also played a central role in international governance, with the 2015 Paris Agreement aiming to limit global temperature rises through collective national commitments. These institutions were built on the premise that global cooperation is essential for resolving cross-border issues. However, their effectiveness has been questioned as world leaders increasingly act unilaterally, bypassing these forums.

 

How global bodies preserved the world order

 

Initially, global institutions played a key role in shaping policies and resolving conflicts. The UN was instrumental in peacekeeping during the Cold War and mediating crises like the Korean War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, its influence has waned, evident in its marginal role during the 2003 Iraq invasion and its struggles in Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.

 

The WTO, once effective in trade dispute mediation, has seen its relevance decline as nations favour bilateral deals over its mechanisms, especially amid the US-China trade war. The WHO, despite past successes against diseases like smallpox and Ebola, faced criticism for its handling of Covid-19, with allegations of Chinese influence and the US briefly cutting funding under Trump.

 

Climate summits, too, have faltered. The US, under Trump, withdrew from the accord before rejoining under Biden, and then re-withdrew in Trump’s second term. As these institutions struggle to enforce mandates, world leaders increasingly bypass them in favour of regional alliances and unilateral actions.

 

Why global organisations are losing power

 

The primary reason these institutions struggle to enforce their decisions is their dependence on member states for funding and authority. The UN, for instance, lacks a global enforcement agency. When resolutions are passed, compliance is often voluntary. For example, despite numerous UN resolutions condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine, there has been no decisive enforcement.

 

Another major issue is the influence of major powers. The UN Security Council is dominated by five permanent members—the US, UK, France, China, and Russia—often leading to veto-based deadlocks. Russia and China have frequently blocked resolutions that challenge their geopolitical interests, rendering the body ineffective.

 

The WTO’s dispute resolution system has also been rendered dysfunctional due to the US blocking the appointment of judges to its appellate body, preventing the resolution of global trade disputes.

 

Similarly, the WHO’s reliance on voluntary contributions makes it susceptible to political influence. Its slow response to Covid-19 was partially attributed to its cautious approach toward China, its second-largest funder after the US.

 

Meanwhile, climate inaction continues due to national interests. Despite climate commitments, nations prioritise their economic growth. Coal-dependent countries like India and China argue that developed nations, which historically contributed the most to carbon emissions, should bear greater responsibility. This impasse has prevented any meaningful global enforcement.

 

Is the world shifting from bipolar to multipolar?

 

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the global order became bipolar, dominated by the two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union. This division shaped international politics, economics, and military alliances, leading to the Cold War era. The UN and other global institutions played a key role in managing conflicts between the two blocs, often serving as platforms for diplomacy rather than effective enforcement bodies. However, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US emerged as the sole superpower, marking the beginning of a unipolar world.

 

This dominance, however, was short-lived. Over the past two decades, global power has been shifting, leading to the emergence of a multipolar world. Countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia have asserted themselves economically and politically, challenging Western-led institutions. Regional alliances like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Quad have gained prominence, reflecting a decentralised global power structure.

 

Do global institutions need reform or replacement?

 

The debate now centres on whether existing institutions should be reformed or if entirely new structures are needed. Many leaders, including Modi, have pushed for UN reforms, particularly in the Security Council. India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany have long demanded permanent seats, arguing that the current structure does not reflect modern geopolitical realities.

 

However, resistance from existing permanent members has stalled any significant change. The WTO is also in need of an overhaul. Experts argue that it must modernise its rules to accommodate digital trade, emerging markets, and economic realities shaped by China’s state-driven capitalism. The US-China trade war revealed the WTO’s inability to mediate effectively.

 

However, such transitions remain complex and face significant opposition.