In a stark departure from the cooperative multilateralism that has defined global progress in recent decades, the US administration announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations on Wednesday. The latest attack on multilateralism is another sign of the United States' troubling retreat into the shadows of the country's 19th century past when the US sought to consolidate its control of the Western Hemisphere taking an exclusionary approach to global issues.

The move comes after a review of US participation in all international organizations and treaties by the US administration, purportedly to determine which are operating "contrary to US national interests". Most of the targets of the executive order suspending US support for 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN international organizations are related to climate, energy, international law and labor rights.

Washington views international commitments as constraints on the US' sovereignty. This perspective is deeply rooted in the misguided belief of American exceptionalism. By pulling the US out from these international bodies, the US administration seems intent on replacing the structures established to promote cooperation with a dog-eat-dog world order, and replacing the international rule of law with the law of the jungle. It is a vision devoid of any constructive strategy for the future, and a vision that harks back to a time when the US prioritized expansion and commercial interests over responsibility.

The White House claims that the entities subject to the executive order have promoted "radical" climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength. But such arguments are specious: joining such bodies is a sovereign decision, made to harness the benefits of predictability and collective effort. Moreover, the financial burden is negligible; the total yearly US contribution to the UN is only about 2 percent of its annual military spending.

The move is indicative of a glaring absence of willingness to support enduring international institutions or invest in a world order of peace and stability. The US administration's unilateralist approach contradicts the global trend toward multilateral cooperation, which is driven by the shared recognition of the benefits of collaborative efforts for the good of all, especially given that many challenges such as climate change, pandemics and security threats transcend national borders and require collaborative solutions.

For the US administration almost every international interaction is viewed through a transactional lens, aimed at enhancing the US' relative power at the expense of others. This retreat from multilateralism to bullying unilateralism is not only shortsighted but also dangerous.

For example, the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is intended to sabotage international efforts to combat climate change in favor of those that benefit from the US' established fossil fuel industry. The implications of this "Make a Few Americans Even Richer" policy — with the tycoons of oil and gas industries being among the few — are profound, as it will accelerate the fragmentation of the already fragile world order, at a time when it is plagued by rising geopolitical tensions, rampant nationalism, stalled economic development and the looming threat of climate change.

By stepping back from its international commitments, the US is not only abdicating its membership of the international community but also exacerbating the very crises that demand collective action.

Returning to an era defined by diplomacy by force will not benefit the US in the long run. Those in Washington intent on an isolationist and unilateralist path should reflect on how entwined national and international interests now are, and how collaboration drives innovation and enhances economic growth, and why cooperation is the only way to address the pressing common challenges.