Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should prioritize bilateral security partnerships over multilateral security partnerships and institutions.

Summary

Expresses that U.S. national interests are better advanced through bilateral agreements and tailored diplomacy with individual countries rather than through participation in multilateral institutions. The text criticizes the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and NATO for perceived failures, ideological bias, influence by human-rights violators, and for no longer serving U.S. strategic leverage in the post‑Cold War era.

• Affirms a policy view that bilateral agreements better serve U.S. national interests than multilateral institutions.
• Criticizes the United Nations and World Health Organization for alleged ideological bias and failures that harmed U.S. interests.
• States that NATO’s original purpose was fulfilled after the Soviet Union’s fall and questions NATO’s present role.
• Raises concerns about influence of human‑rights violators in UN bodies and the exclusion of Taiwan from some forums.
• Cites U.S. financial contributions to multilateral organizations as a reason to reassess U.S. participation and leverage.
• Encourages a diplomatic strategy focused on tailored, country‑specific security agreements and bilateral diplomacy.
• Contains findings and policy statements rather than operational or funding mandates.
• Signals potential shifts in foreign policy priorities that could affect how the U.S. engages allies and international bodies.
• Highlights pandemic‑era concerns about WHO performance as part of the rationale to favor bilateral approaches.