01 Feb Why You Shouldn’t Panic Over President Trump’s Draft Executive Orders on Funding for International Organizations
Because I am on sabbatical this semester, I have been lying low during these first few (very busy!) weeks of the Trump administration. But I have noticed that the sheer volume of Trump administration actions, and reactions to its actions, is confusing both its supporters and its critics. While Trump has already taken actions that are worthy of severe criticism (see, e.g., his much-maligned immigration executive order), some of his other proposed actions are being overblown as further threats to the Republic. This type of overstatement and mischaracterization is as damaging to Trump’s critics as they are to the Trump administration itself.
For instance, two draft Trump executive orders on international organizations and multilateral treaties leaked late last week causing a flurry of instant condemnation on social media and elsewhere. The initial reports about these orders, especially on twitter and in headlines, suggested that Trump would by executive order “to dramatically reduce funding of United Nations.” New York Magazine’s summary of the draft order is particularly sensational:
….Donald Trump is preparing to decimate this tool of American hegemony [the U.N.] — and global peacekeeping and poverty reduction — with a stroke of his pen.
The Trump administration has drafted an executive order that would radically reduce American funding of the U.N. and other international organizations. The order would terminate all U.S. funding to any international body that meets any one of a long list of criteria. Among other things, the order would bar American funding of any organization that gives full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, supports programs that fund abortion, or that is “controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism.” (Emphasis added).
The problem with this summary is that it is totally inaccurate. The actual draft executive order simply forms a committee to study and provide recommendations on whether and how to cut U.S. funding to the U.N. and other international organizations. The order does not “terminate” anything with “a stroke of a pen.” Its most aggressive section would simply require the Committee to “recommend appropriate strategies to cease funding” international agencies that grants membership to the Palestinian Authority or supports terrorism. Funding for these agencies is already prohibited by U.S. statute, so this is really an order to think of ways to comply with U.S. law. To be sure, the order takes a much harsher and negative view of funding international organizations than prior U.S. administrations, but the order is hardly the end of the United Nations as we know it. This is especially true if we recall that Congress, and not the President, has the power to fund or not fund international organizations like the U.N..
The draft executive order on multilateral treaties is potentially more significant because the President has broad powers to withdraw from treaties. But the order itself simply creates another committee to review U.S. participation in all multilateral treaties that the U.S. is negotiating, in the process of considering ratification, or already ratified and joined. The committee is instructed to recommend whether the U.S. should continue negotiating, ratifying, or being part of those treaties.
The only unusual part of this process is to elevate treaty review to an interagency committee. But such a review process is reasonable for any new administration. The only real action in the draft order is a moratorium on submitting new treaties to the President or the Senate absent a committee recommendation. This might slow down the already slow treaty ratification process, but given the glacial pace of Senate consideration of most treaties, I doubt this “moratorium” will have much an effect.
There is plenty to criticize and even protest in the new Trump administration’s flurry of executive orders and statements. But Trump’s critics need to carefully distinguish between what is truly troubling and what bears watching, and what is not really significant. Otherwise, they risk undermining their credibility and the effectiveness of their critiques. These two draft executive orders bear watching as a signal of the new administration’s priorities. But they are not a cause for panic.
So everyone take a step back, and read beyond the headlines or twitter summaries before reacting and overreacting. There is and will be plenty to criticize in the new administration. Save your ammunition for when it is truly needed.