America First, World Less United - Trump's Withdrawal from International Organisations and Its Global Impact

18th January 2026

In early 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump launched one of the most sweeping withdrawals from multilateral institutions in modern American history.

Through an executive order and presidential memoranda, the United States government directed all departments to exit 66 international organisations, treaties and conventions including many that have been central to global cooperation on climate science, health, development, democracy and human rights.

The administration frames this retreat as necessary to protect U.S. sovereignty and national interests, but the consequences for global governance and cooperation are profound and potentially long‑lasting.

At the centre of this policy shift is a broader Trump‑era doctrine that positions multilateralism as at odds with what the administration terms "American independence" or national sovereignty.

The White House argues that many of these bodies are mismanaged, redundant, wasteful or advancing agendas deemed contrary to U.S. interests. This move builds on earlier exits — including the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and suspension of funding for agencies such as UNRWA and the World Health Organization (WHO) — and reflects sustained scepticism within the administration toward global institutions.

The 66 International Organisations - What the U.S. Is Leaving[b]

The withdrawal order divides targeted bodies into roughly 31 United Nations‑affiliated organisations and 35 non‑UN international entities. The full list is extensive, but the memorandum and reporting identify many of the major organisations. Key examples include:

[b]United Nations‑Affiliated Bodies (31)

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — the foundational treaty for global climate negotiations, including the basis for the Paris Agreement.

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) — leading UN agency on reproductive health, family planning and population issues.

UN Women — advocates for gender equality and women's empowerment.

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) — forum for developing country trade policy.

UN Human Settlements Programme (UN‑Habitat) — focus on urban development and human settlements.

UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) — delivers training for diplomats and technical professionals.

Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary‑General on Children in Armed Conflict — monitors and reports on the impact of war on children.

Office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the office on Violence Against Children — specialised human rights posts.

Permanent Forum on People of African Descent — advisory body on issues facing people of African descent.

UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, UN Water, UN University and others focused on coordination, research, and advisory support.

Non‑UN International Organisations (35)

These include a wide range of global forums and specialised bodies:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the pre‑eminent scientific body for assessing climate change.

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and International Solar Alliance (ISA) — cooperatives on renewable energy deployment.

Global Counterterrorism Forum — multinational forum for counterterrorism cooperation.

Colombo Plan Council — technical cooperation across the Asia‑Pacific.

Global Forum on Cyber Expertise and Global Forum on Migration and Development — forums for digital cooperation and migration policy.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation, International Cotton Advisory Committee, International Tropical Timber Organization, Pan‑American Institute of Geography and History, and others focused on trade, environment, and sectoral cooperation.

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property and the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies — bodies linked to cultural heritage and arts cooperation.

This sweeping list represents a cross‑section of the world’s multilateral architecture — from climate science, renewable energy and environment to gender equality, development, human rights and technical cooperation.

Why It Matters: Climate, Health, Security and Beyond

The U.S. withdrawal from these organisations is more than symbolic: it has real consequences for global cooperation, shared scientific efforts, humanitarian initiatives, and international policy standards.

Climate Action and Environmental Governance

The decision to quit the UNFCCC and IPCC represents a serious setback for international climate governance. The UNFCCC is the formal treaty mechanism under which nearly every nation negotiates emissions targets and climate cooperation; the IPCC is the most authoritative scientific body assessing global warming trends. Without U.S. involvement, global climate efforts lose a major emitter, a significant source of scientific and financial capacity, and a key diplomatic partner.

Experts warn this reduces collective pressure to curb emissions and weakens global accountability — potentially hindering coordinated climate responses and undermining commitments set in international agreements.

Global Health and Humanitarian Impact

Although the list of 66 does not explicitly repeat every World Health Organization (WHO) exit, the broader pattern includes the U.S. departure from the WHO and significant reductions in funding to health‑related UN programmes.

The U.S. has historically been one of the largest funders of global health agencies; its withdrawal from key partners and reduced funding can jeopardise programmes ranging from pandemic preparedness to reproductive and maternal health, especially in lower‑income countries that rely heavily on international support.

Development, Trade and Social Policy

Programmes such as the UN Population Fund, UN Women, and UNCTAD operate at the intersection of development, rights and economic policy. The U.S. exit limits its influence on standards, research and policy guidance on issues like family planning, gender equality, trade policy analysis, and sustainable development. Other nations may fill the governance vacuum, potentially shifting the centre of global policy influence to actors with different priorities.

Security and Cooperative Forums

Withdrawal from forums such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum and regional cooperative agreements on issues like piracy and maritime security may weaken channels of multilateral security cooperation. While the U.S. retains its own military capabilities and bilateral alliances, the loss of regular multilateral platforms can make information‑sharing and coordinated strategies more difficult, especially in domains like cybersecurity, migration, and non‑traditional security challenges.

Broader Implications for World Order

Taken together, these withdrawals mark a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy — one that prioritises unilateral action and scepticism of multilateral frameworks. For decades, the U.S. played a central role in sustaining the post‑World War II international system: leading global governance, underwriting international organisations, and shaping multilateral responses to shared challenges.

Now, many analysts warn this transformation risks fragmenting international cooperation, reducing collective responses to transnational risks, and ceding influence to other global powers that remain engaged. As one climate and governance expert put it, the U.S. retreat from these organisations makes coordinated action on issues like climate change, health emergencies and development goals “significantly harder.”

A Turning Point in Global Engagement

President Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations is one of the most consequential shifts in U.S. engagement with the world order in generations. The range of bodies affected — from climate treaties and scientific panels to development, gender equality, heritage and security forums — illustrates the breadth of multilateral cooperation that now faces diminished American participation.

While the administration promotes this as restoring U.S. sovereignty, critics argue it weakens global cooperation precisely when coordinated responses to climate change, pandemics, economic instability and security threats are most needed.

The ultimate impact will unfold over years — influencing how nations work together to solve shared problems, how power balances shift among major states, and how global norms evolve in the absence of full U.S. involvement.