Written By | Evan Sande Ndahura
Evan Sande Ndahura is a Ugandan writer, poet, and socio-political commentator whose work focuses on global power structures, governance failures, and economic and human rights justice
Search
In early January 2026, President Donald Trump launched one of the most consequential foreign policy shifts of the modern era: the United States announced it would withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations bodies and 35 non-UN entities — a sweeping retreat from global cooperation. Trump framed this as defending U.S. sovereignty and saving taxpayer dollars, but critics describe it as a dismantling of the post-World War II multilateral system. The White House
Simultaneously, Trump renewed rhetoric about acquiring Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory, asserting that the U.S. “needs Greenland” for strategic security in the Arctic — even openly contemplating incentives of up to $100,000 per Greenlander to sway public opinion.
The Sun. The global reaction has been swift and decisive — from capitals in Europe to legislative chambers in Washington.
Why Greenland? Why now?
Greenland’s value to the U.S. is primarily strategic and economic:
Trump argues that control of Greenland is essential to counter Russia’s and China’s expanding Arctic presence, a theme he links to his recent Venezuela operation — a comparison that alarmed many global leaders. AP News.
But Greenlanders themselves are overwhelmingly opposed. A recent poll showed that about 84–85% of Greenlanders reject U.S. annexation, and only around 6% support it — a rejection echoed across Greenland’s political leadership. The Guardian.
The withdrawal from international organizations: strategy or self-isolation?
Trump’s January 7 memorandum instructs all U.S. departments to end participation and funding in 66 bodies that the administration says conflict with U.S. interests, including climate, development, democracy, and human rights agencies. The White House.
Notable organizations targeted include:
Experts warn that this withdrawal could reduce U.S. influence in global governance, disrupt humanitarian and scientific collaboration, and cede strategic advantage to rivals such as China, which continues investing in multilateral platforms. Global Issues.
Senators, scholars, diplomats: what are they saying?
U.S. lawmakers
Congress has seen sharp debate across party lines: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) warned that a military or coercive effort to claim Greenland “would degrade both our national security and our international relationships.” TIME.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R–North Carolina) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D–New Hampshire) jointly stressed that the U.S. must honour treaty commitments and respect sovereignty, calling for working with allies rather than against them. TIME.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Kentucky) called threats over Greenland “counterproductive,” warning they could harm America’s strategic standing worldwide. TIME.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D–New York) blasted the withdrawal from international organizations as “an assault on the multilateral, rules-based system the U.S. helped build,” arguing that it undermines U.S. security and prosperity.
House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–Kentucky) publicly supported the pullout from multilateral bodies, framing them as “left-wing” or “globalist.” WKEF.
Scholars of international relations
Academic voices highlight the risks of isolating the U.S. from global institutions that manage pandemics, climate change, and economic standards. Many argue that power today is amplified by cooperation — not weakened by it.
Diplomats and foreign leaders
European leaders, Nordic governments, and NATO partners have united in opposition:
Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, emphatically stated that the U.S. has “no right to annex Greenland” and warned that such moves could spell the end of NATO’s cohesion. AP News.
Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, called U.S. annexation talk “utterly unacceptable” and demanded respect for the island’s self-determination. Xinhua News.
Norway, Finland, and Sweden publicly backed Denmark’s position that Greenland’s fate belongs to its people.
Xinhua News.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni dismissed the notion of military force and urged NATO to play a stronger role in Arctic security. AP News.
A bipartisan group of 15 former senior U.S. officials — ex-ambassadors and assistant secretaries — warned the White House against any military attempt to seize Greenland, arguing it would devastate NATO unity.
Axios.
The hard questions no one can ignore
Is America strong enough to stand alone?
The U.S. still retains unmatched military capabilities and economic size, but security in the 21st century increasingly depends on coalition intelligence sharing, pandemic response coordination, and climate-driven disaster mitigation — functions many of the withdrawn organizations support.
Global Issues.
Does unilateralism provoke counter-coalitions?
Historical experience and current geopolitics both show that aggressive, isolated power often pushes others into tighter alliances rather than submission. U.S. departures from treaties may encourage rival blocs centred on China, the EU, or regional powers in Africa and Asia.
Are other nations learning or simply watching?
Across the Global South — from Iran to Nigeria, from Venezuela to New Delhi — leaders are watching closely. Many see the turbulence as a cautionary lesson: reliance on any single global power carries risks. Others view it as an opportunity to pursue strategic autonomy and build stronger regional institutions.
Conclusion: power without trust is not leadership
Trump’s recent moves — strategic withdrawal from multilateral organizations, renewed annexation rhetoric toward Greenland, and a muscular posture in Venezuela — have triggered one of the sharpest global debates in decades. These actions challenge assumptions about U.S. reliability, alliance cohesion, and the future of global governance. History shows that nations retain influence not merely through military might, but through trust, legitimacy, and shared purpose. Whether the United States emerges from this era strengthened or increasingly isolated will depend on its ability to rebuild alliances and demonstrate — beyond rhetoric — that its power serves both national and global security.
About the writer
Evan Sande Ndahura is a Ugandan writer, poet, and socio-political commentator whose work focuses on global power structures, governance failures, and economic and human rights justice. Through articles, poems, and analytical commentary, he explores how international decisions affect ordinary lives, particularly in Africa and the Global South, while critiquing the global systems that shape them. His writing blends moral inquiry with geopolitical insight, urging leaders to consider the broader human costs of policy choices.
Torch Media Africa
