President Donald J. Trump has signed a presidential memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations, conventions and treaties, in what the White House describes as an effort to prioritise American interests and sovereignty over “globalist” agendas.
The directive, announced late on January 7, 2026, instructs all U.S. executive departments and agencies to cease participation in and funding of the identified bodies “as soon as possible,” asserting that many of the institutions “no longer serve American interests” and are “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
According to the fact sheet released by the White House, the withdrawals will affect 35 non-United Nations organisations and 31 UN-affiliated entities that the administration says promote policies at odds with U.S. economic prosperity, national security, or sovereignty.
A statement accompanying the memorandum justified the move by asserting that many of the institutions:
“…promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programmes that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this reasoning in related public remarks, describing the organisations as “anti-American, useless, or wasteful,” and arguing that: “It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it.”
Administration officials framed the decision within President Trump’s broader “America First” policy agenda, an effort to cut what it sees as excessive international commitments and reallocate taxpayer resources toward domestic priorities.
The list of bodies from which the U.S. is departing includes a range of climate, development, governance and scientific entities.
Therefore, among the non-UN organisations named are: International Solar Alliance (India- and France-led climate partnership); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); International Renewable Energy Agency; and International Union for Conservation of Nature
Additionally, on the United Nations side, affected entities include: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); UN Women;UN Population Fund; Peacebuilding Commission; and International Law Commission and several economic and social bodies.
Not all of these entities have formally acknowledged the U.S. withdrawal yet, and in some cases the process will require adherence to formal exit procedures under international legal frameworks.
The move has drawn intense debate and criticism globally. Climate scientists and advocacy groups condemned exits from climate-related institutions.
Dr Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the administration’s decision “a new low,” arguing that withdrawing from the UNFCCC and IPCC, both central to global climate understanding, undermines international cooperation and scientific integrity.
International partners have also signalled concern. Officials from environmental organisations like the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) have emphasised that formal legal processes must be followed before withdrawal is complete, and warned of potential long-term impacts on collaborative environmental efforts.
This latest policy is part of a broader pattern of reduced U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions since Trump began his second term. Previous actions have included withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as suspension of funding for several UN agencies.
The White House memorandum reiterates the administration’s view that U.S. involvement in many international bodies has become ineffective or misaligned with national priorities, and that the reallocation of funding will support infrastructure, defense readiness, and other domestic goals.
While proponents of the policy say it restores U.S. autonomy, critics insist that disengagement from global cooperation poses risks, especially at a time of shared global challenges such as climate change, public health threats, and economic interdependence. Experts note that as the U.S. withdraws from these forums, complex legal processes and diplomatic negotiations will be needed to fully disentangle its obligations and influence future participation.
