Trump’s radical retreat: withdrawing the U.S. from 66 global bodies

In a sweeping move that underscores President Donald J. Trump’s “America First” doctrine, the White House announced on 7 January the immediate withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties deemed contrary to national interests

This presidential memorandum, building on a review initiated by Executive Order 14199 in February 2025, targets a broad array of entities focused on climate change, human rights, global security, and economic development.

To add insult to injury, administration allies and supporters have described these vital organizations—many of which advance critical global efforts in climate science, counterterrorism, gender equality, and public health—as “anti-American, useless, or wasteful international organizations.”

Today, President Trump announced the U.S. is leaving 66 anti-American, useless, or wasteful international organizations. Review of additional international organizations remains ongoing.
These withdrawals keep a key promise President Trump made to Americans – we will stop…
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) January 8, 2026

Critics view it as a stark escalation of isolationism, while supporters hail it as a necessary purge of “wasteful” and “harmful” global commitments.

The action comes amid Trump’s second term, which has already seen the U.S. exit from high-profile bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris climate agreement, UNESCO, and the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The memorandum directs all executive departments and agencies to cease participation and funding “as soon as possible,” emphasizing sovereignty and opposition to what the administration calls “globalist agendas.”

While no specific conventions or treaties beyond implied associations are named, the list includes 35 non-U.N. organizations and 31 U.N. entities, many of which play pivotal roles in international cooperation.

The scope of the withdrawals

The memorandum categorizes the targeted organizations into non-U.N. and U.N.-affiliated groups. Among the non-U.N. entities are bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

U.N.-related withdrawals include the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).

This broad retreat affects sectors from environmental protection to counterterrorism and cultural preservation. The State Department described these institutions as “redundant, mismanaged, or captured by interests contrary to our own,” arguing that continued involvement threatens U.S. sovereignty and prosperity.

Ongoing reviews suggest more withdrawals could follow.

Highlighting the importance of key organisations

While the administration frames these entities as burdensome, many are cornerstones of global governance. Here are some of the most significant ones and their critical roles:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Established in 1988, the IPCC synthesizes scientific research on climate change, providing authoritative assessments that inform policies worldwide. Its reports have been instrumental in shaping international responses to global warming, including the Paris Agreement. U.S. withdrawal could diminish America’s voice in climate science debates, especially as rivals like China remain involved.

– U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Often called the “bedrock” of global climate efforts, the UNFCCC serves as the parent treaty to the Paris accords and facilitates annual COP conferences where nations negotiate emissions reductions. It has mobilized trillions in climate finance and coordinated responses to environmental crises. Exiting this body further isolates the U.S. from collaborative efforts to combat rising sea levels, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss.

– U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women): Formed in 2010, UN Women advocates for gender equality, supporting programs that address violence against women, economic empowerment, and political participation in over 100 countries. Its work has been vital in advancing women’s rights in conflict zones and developing nations, influencing U.S. foreign policy on human rights.

– U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA): UNFPA provides essential reproductive health services, family planning, and maternal care to millions, particularly in low-income countries. It plays a key role in reducing maternal mortality and addressing population dynamics amid global challenges like migration and urbanization. Withdrawal could exacerbate health disparities and strain U.S. bilateral aid efforts.

– Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF): Launched in 2011, the GCTF coordinates multinational strategies against terrorism, sharing intelligence and best practices among 30 member countries, including allies and adversaries like Russia and China. It has helped dismantle networks and prevent attacks, underscoring its importance for U.S. national security in an interconnected world.

– the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), a key regionally owned framework established in 2008 to promote cooperation, economic growth, and Euro-Atlantic integration in South East Europe, particularly the Western Balkans. The RCC serves as the operational arm of the South-East European Cooperation Process (SEECP), coordinating regional initiatives in areas such as economic development, connectivity, trade facilitation, youth mobility, and good governance among its participants—including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo*, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey.

These organizations, among others, have historically amplified U.S. influence by providing platforms for diplomacy and soft power. Their absence could create vacuums filled by other powers, potentially weakening America’s global standing.

Implications of this isolationist step

This memorandum represents a continuation of Trump’s isolationist policies, prioritizing domestic concerns over multilateralism.

Proponents argue it saves taxpayer dollars – potentially billions – and protects against “woke” or inefficient bureaucracies.

However, experts warn of long-term risks: diminished U.S. leadership in addressing transnational issues like pandemics, terrorism, and climate change.

Reactions have been swift and polarized. On social media, discussions range from praise for “America First” to fears of a “RIP to international law.”

As the withdrawals take effect – some as early as of 22 January for prior actions like the WHO – the global community watches to see if this heralds a new era of American unilateralism.

Caption: US President Donald J. Trump looks on during a signing ceremony on artificial intelligence in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 11 December 2025. EPA/SHAWN THEW / POOL