The United States’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations marks a major shift in global governance. On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties. Nearly half of these bodies are affiliated with the United Nations. The decision was formalized through an executive order and signals a deeper retreat from multilateral engagement than seen during Trump’s first term.
This article examines the US withdrawal from international organizations through a research-based lens. Using official documents, expert analysis, and historical context, it explores why the decision was made and what it means for global cooperation. Rather than a routine policy change, this move may reshape international institutions and alter how countries work together to address shared global challenges.
The United States as a cornerstone of international organizations
The United States has historically been a pivotal architect and sustainer of the post-World War II international order. Emerging from the ashes of global conflict, the U.S. championed the creation of institutions designed to foster peace, economic stability, and collective problem-solving. As a strategic development partner, America’s role extended beyond mere participation; it provided intellectual leadership, financial muscle, and diplomatic leverage that shaped these bodies’ agendas and operations.
Consider the United Nations itself, founded in 1945 with the U.S. as a driving force behind its charter. The U.S. hosted the San Francisco Conference where the UN was born and has since been its largest financial contributor, funding about 22% of the UN’s regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping operations in recent years. This support enabled initiatives like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which the U.S. helped draft, promoting global norms on freedom and dignity.
In economic realms, the U.S. spearheaded the Bretton Woods institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—in 1944, providing initial capital and governance structures that stabilized post-war economies and facilitated development aid to war-torn nations. For instance, the Marshall Plan, administered partly through these frameworks, rebuilt Europe and set a precedent for U.S.-led international aid.
On health and science, the U.S. was instrumental in establishing the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1948, contributing expertise and funds that eradicated smallpox globally by 1980—a triumph of multilateral cooperation. Similarly, in environmental affairs, American leadership under President George H.W. Bush helped forge the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, laying the groundwork for international climate action.
These examples illustrate how the U.S. has not only funded but also innovated within these organizations, often aligning them with democratic values and free-market principles. Without American engagement, many of these entities might have faltered in their infancy, underscoring the U.S.’s role as both benefactor and beneficiary in a interconnected world.
Origins, mandates, and impacts of the targeted organizations
The 66 entities targeted for withdrawal span a diverse array of focuses, from climate and environment to human rights, development, and cultural preservation. They can be broadly categorized into 31 UN-affiliated bodies and 35 non-UN organizations, as detailed in the White House executive order. Most were established in the latter half of the 20th century or early 21st, responding to emerging global challenges like decolonization, environmental degradation, and globalization.
For UN-affiliated organizations, many trace their roots to the UN’s expansive mandate under its Charter. The UNFCCC, created in 1992, aimed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent dangerous climate interference, leading to milestones like the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Paris Agreement (2015). It has mobilized trillions in climate finance, though critics argue it falls short on enforcement, with global emissions still rising. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), founded in 1969, focuses on reproductive health and population dynamics, delivering aid that has reduced maternal mortality by 44% since 1990 in supported countries, per UN reports. UN Women, established in 2010, advances gender equality, contributing to policies that increased women’s parliamentary representation globally from 11% in 1995 to 26% today.
Non-UN bodies often emerged from regional or thematic coalitions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Programme, provides scientific assessments that have informed over 195 countries’ policies, earning a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its role in raising climate awareness. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), founded in 1948, maintains the Red List of Threatened Species, influencing conservation efforts that have saved species like the American bald eagle from extinction. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), created in 2009, promotes renewable energy adoption, reporting that renewables now account for 29% of global electricity, up from 20% a decade ago.
Have these organizations delivered on their mandates? The evidence is mixed but leans positive. Collectively, they have facilitated knowledge sharing, standard-setting, and resource mobilization that addressed transnational issues no single nation could tackle alone. For example, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), established in 1964, has advocated for developing countries in trade negotiations, contributing to the Generalized System of Preferences that boosted exports from least-developed nations by billions. However, challenges persist: bureaucratic inefficiencies, political gridlock, and uneven implementation have hampered full mandate delivery, as noted in various audits and reviews.
Reasons behind the U.S. withdrawal
The Trump administration’s rationale centers on these organizations being “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful” to U.S. interests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio elaborated that they are “redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.” This echoes longstanding conservative critiques of multilateralism as encroaching on American autonomy, particularly in areas like climate policy and gender initiatives deemed ideologically driven.
The decision stems from a review initiated by Executive Order 14199 in February 2025, which scrutinized all U.S.-involved international bodies for alignment with national priorities. Officials argue that U.S. taxpayer dollars—often constituting 20-30% of these organizations’ budgets—are better redirected domestically or toward bilateral arrangements that yield direct benefits. For climate-focused entities like the UNFCCC and IPCC, the withdrawal reflects skepticism toward “radical climate policies” that could burden U.S. industries. Broader geopolitical frustrations, including perceived anti-U.S. biases in UN forums, also play a role.
Impact on global development
The withdrawal weakens international development systems. U.S. leadership helped align funding, standards, and priorities. By exiting bodies like UNFPA and UNCTAD, the U.S. forfeits influence over programs aiding economic growth and health in developing nations, potentially leading to fragmented efforts and reduced global coordination. Experts warn of a “my way or the highway” approach that undermines multilateral trust, as Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group described it. This could exacerbate inequalities, as development agendas shift toward power politics rather than collective needs.
Consequences for poor countries
Without U.S. funding and participation, many organizations face existential threats. The UNFCCC, for instance, loses its second-largest contributor (after the EU), potentially stalling climate finance pledges critical for adaptation in vulnerable states. Smaller bodies like the UN Democracy Fund may shrink or dissolve, given U.S. dominance in their budgets. However, resilience is possible; the Paris Agreement survived the U.S.’s previous exit in 2020, with other nations stepping up.
For poor countries, the impacts are dire. Withdrawals from UNFPA and UN Water could hinder access to family planning and sanitation, affecting millions in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia where maternal health programs rely on U.S. aid. USAID’s reported project closures already signal reduced support for malnutrition and education initiatives. In climate terms, least-developed countries face heightened risks from disasters without U.S.-backed mitigation efforts, potentially increasing poverty cycles.
Possible future plans for the United States
Following the withdrawal from 66 international organizations, the Trump administration has signaled a decisive shift toward a more unilateral foreign policy, emphasizing “America First” principles that prioritize domestic revitalization over multilateral commitments. According to the White House fact sheet released on January 7, 2026, the move is designed to reclaim billions in taxpayer dollars previously allocated to these entities, redirecting them toward critical national needs such as infrastructure upgrades, enhanced military capabilities, and strengthened border security. This reallocation aligns with broader economic goals, including protecting American industries from what the administration views as unfair global regulations. For instance, by exiting climate-focused bodies like the Paris Agreement and the IPCC, the U.S. aims to unleash domestic energy production without international constraints, potentially boosting sectors like fossil fuels and manufacturing. Officials have hinted at forging bilateral trade agreements with key partners, such as the United Kingdom and India, to secure favorable terms that enhance U.S. exports and reduce trade deficits, echoing the renegotiated USMCA during Trump’s first term.whitehouse.gov
In the realm of security and geopolitics, the administration plans to amplify U.S. power projection through substantial increases in military spending, with proposals to elevate the defense budget to $1.5 trillion by 2027—a move framed as essential for “American imperialism” in countering adversaries like China and Russia. This includes bolstering presence in selective international forums where U.S. influence can be maintained or expanded, such as the International Telecommunications Union, to challenge Beijing’s dominance in global tech standards. The executive order also mandates ongoing reviews of additional organizations, suggesting a phased approach to further disengagements that could target entities perceived as ideologically biased. Domestically, the dismantling of USAID’s multilateral components, as noted by the State Department, will streamline aid delivery through direct bilateral channels, ensuring assistance aligns strictly with U.S. strategic interests, such as promoting energy independence in allied nations or countering migration flows at their source.nytimes.comwhitehouse.gov
Looking ahead, this strategy could foster new coalitions of “like-minded” countries outside traditional multilateral frameworks, potentially forming ad hoc alliances focused on trade, security, and technology—such as an expanded Quad partnership with Japan, Australia, and India to contain Chinese expansionism. Critics, including former diplomats, warn that this isolationist pivot risks diminishing U.S. soft power, but proponents argue it will restore national sovereignty and economic strength, allowing the U.S. to engage the world on its own terms. As the administration continues to implement these changes, the full contours of this redefined foreign policy will likely emerge through upcoming budget proposals and diplomatic initiatives, marking a profound reconfiguration of America’s global role.
How China and others may benefit
The United States’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations opens significant opportunities for China to expand its global influence, particularly in climate and renewable energy sectors where Beijing already dominates manufacturing and investment. As the leading producer of solar panels and wind turbines, controlling over 80% of the global solar supply chain, China is well-positioned to steer bodies like the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) toward policies that favor its technologies and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. For example, in the wake of the U.S.’s previous exit from the Paris Agreement in 2017, China hosted key climate summits and increased its commitments, positioning itself as a climate leader while avoiding stringent scrutiny on its own emissions, which still account for nearly 30% of the global total. This time, with the U.S. absent from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), China could accelerate its green diplomacy, offering loans and infrastructure to developing nations in Africa and Latin America, thereby enhancing its economic leverage and soft power without the counterbalance of American advocacy for market-based solutions.
Russia, another major beneficiary, could capitalize on the vacuum in security, energy, and counterterrorism forums, where U.S. disengagement reduces opposition to Moscow’s agendas. In organizations like the UN Conference on Disarmament or the Global Counterterrorism Forum, Russia’s influence might grow, allowing it to promote narratives that downplay Western sanctions over issues like the Ukraine conflict and emphasize multipolar alternatives such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which it co-leads with China. For instance, the U.S. pullback from climate-related bodies could indirectly benefit Russia’s fossil fuel exports, as weakened global enforcement of emissions reductions delays the transition away from oil and gas—sectors where Russia holds sway in forums like the International Energy Forum. Similarly, India stands to gain in development and environmental arenas, particularly through its leadership in the India-led International Solar Alliance (ISA), from which the U.S. is now withdrawing. Without U.S. funding and influence, India could steer ISA toward priorities for developing nations, such as equitable solar technology transfers, while advocating for less burdensome climate commitments in UN bodies, aligning with its push for “common but differentiated responsibilities” that favor emerging economies.
The ripple effects extend to other powerful actors, such as the European Union as a collective force and emerging players like Brazil and Saudi Arabia, potentially fostering a more fragmented but multipolar global order. The EU, committed to multilateralism, might step up in vacated spaces like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Paris Agreement, but without U.S. partnership, it could face challenges in countering authoritarian influences, leading to a scenario where China and Russia dominate alternative institutions. Brazil, a key voice in biodiversity through the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, could amplify its role in environmental governance, pushing for Amazon-focused policies amid reduced U.S. pressure on deforestation. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, might exploit weakened climate pacts to protect its oil interests, similar to how it navigated the Paris Agreement negotiations. Overall, this U.S. retreat risks empowering non-democratic regimes to reshape international norms, from health standards to trade rules, potentially at the expense of transparent, rights-oriented cooperation that has long benefited global stability.
Will Europe follow the U.S.?
Europe is unlikely to mirror the U.S., given its commitment to multilateralism. The EU, a staunch supporter of the Paris Agreement, has advanced emissions reductions independently. Allies like Britain and Australia may criticize but not exit, viewing these bodies as essential for global stability. No nation has followed the U.S. out of major treaties yet, though populist pressures could test this resolve.
How remaining members can respond
Remaining members must innovate to sustain these organizations—perhaps by diversifying funding or reforming governance to address U.S. critiques. The UN, facing cuts, should prioritize efficiency and inclusivity to avert collapse. This withdrawal signals strain but not inevitable demise; the UN’s universal membership provides a buffer. Members could rally around core mandates, inviting U.S. re-engagement under future administrations.
Is this a global threat?
Undoubtedly, this poses risks to global stability. By disdainfully rejecting climate policy, as legal scholar Jean Galbraith noted, it signals U.S. abdication of responsibility amid escalating crises. Gina McCarthy termed it “shortsighted, embarrassing, and foolish,” eroding U.S. credibility and emboldening polluters. In a world grappling with pandemics, conflicts, and environmental tipping points, diminished cooperation could amplify threats, from unchecked emissions to weakened human rights norms. Yet, it also presents an opportunity for other powers to lead, potentially fostering a more multipolar, if fragmented, order.
In conclusion, this withdrawal is a watershed moment, challenging the foundations of international cooperation. As researchers, we must monitor its unfolding impacts, advocating for evidence-based reforms that preserve the benefits of multilateralism while addressing legitimate grievances. The global community stands at a crossroads—will it adapt and thrive, or fracture further?
Felix Rutayisire is a researcher and evaluation specialist with expertise in international development, global governance, and evidence-based policy analysis. His work focuses on monitoring and evaluation, institutional effectiveness, and the implications of global policy shifts for development practice in Africa and beyond.