Mubashar Nadeem
The Trump administration has announced one of the most sweeping reversals of US engagement with the international system in modern history, declaring its intention to withdraw from 66 international organisations. These include 31 United Nations bodies and 35 non-UN institutions that span climate change, labour rights, migration, gender equality, development, energy, science, culture, and global governance. The decision reflects President Donald Trump’s long-standing scepticism of multilateral institutions and his belief that many global frameworks constrain US sovereignty while promoting agendas he considers ideologically driven and hostile to American interests.
According to the White House, many of the organisations targeted for withdrawal are seen as advancing diversity, equity, climate, and migration policies that the administration labels as “woke” and incompatible with its vision of national interest. Officials argue that these institutions impose costs, obligations, and political pressures on the United States without delivering tangible benefits. Instead, the administration says it wants a foreign policy that prioritises bilateral deals, transactional diplomacy, and narrowly defined security and economic objectives.
Among the 31 United Nations entities the US plans to exit are some of the UN’s most influential development, climate, human rights, and governance bodies. These include the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, multiple regional economic commissions under ECOSOC, the International Law Commission, the International Trade Centre, and a wide range of offices dealing with children in armed conflict, sexual violence, peacebuilding, and Africa-related development. The list also includes UN Women, the UN Population Fund, UN-Habitat, UN Water, UN Oceans, UN Energy, and the UN Democracy Fund, signalling a broad retreat from social, environmental, and governance-oriented multilateral work.
Most consequentially, the administration has moved to withdraw not only from the Paris Agreement, but also from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundational treaty adopted in 1992 that underpins the entire global climate regime. Trump had already announced, shortly after returning to office in January 2025, that the United States would exit the Paris Agreement for a second time, with the withdrawal taking legal effect on January 27, 2026. Once that happens, the US will no longer be bound by international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
By targeting the UNFCCC itself, however, the administration is signalling a deeper rejection of international climate governance. Leaving the convention would effectively remove the United States from all formal climate negotiations, including future climate summits, reporting obligations, and collective mechanisms for mitigation and adaptation. This step goes far beyond Trump’s earlier climate withdrawals and would place the US entirely outside the global climate architecture at a time when climate impacts are accelerating worldwide.
The decision to withdraw from the UNFCCC is also legally sensitive. Unlike the Paris Agreement, which was adopted as an executive agreement, the UNFCCC is a Senate-ratified treaty. Legal experts expect the administration’s authority to unilaterally withdraw from such a treaty to be challenged in US courts. Critics argue that bypassing Congress undermines constitutional checks and balances and sets a precedent that could destabilise the US treaty system more broadly.
Despite the scale of the withdrawals, the administration has been careful to stress that the United States will remain engaged in a limited number of UN bodies it considers essential. Washington will retain its seat on the UN Security Council, as well as membership in the World Food Programme and the UN Refugee Agency. These institutions, the White House argues, serve direct humanitarian or security purposes that align with US strategic priorities, particularly in conflict zones and crisis situations.
Beyond the UN system, the administration has also announced plans to leave 35 non-UN international organisations. These include major climate and environmental bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the International Solar Alliance. It also includes institutions focused on biodiversity, sustainable development, mining, renewable energy policy, and environmental research. Together, these exits represent a near-total disengagement from global environmental cooperation.
The list also extends into governance, democracy, and human rights. The US plans to withdraw from bodies such as the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, and organisations focused on justice, rule of law, and electoral integrity. In the digital and security sphere, exits include the Freedom Online Coalition, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, and various counterterrorism and resilience platforms, although some security-focused forums will continue through bilateral or alternative arrangements.
Cultural, educational, and scientific cooperation is also affected. Institutions dealing with arts, culture, heritage preservation, education in emergencies, and scientific research partnerships are among those the US plans to leave. Critics warn that this could weaken American soft power, reduce academic and scientific collaboration, and diminish US influence in setting global norms and standards.
Supporters of the administration’s move argue that the US has long carried a disproportionate financial and political burden in international institutions that often work against American interests. They contend that withdrawing frees up resources, restores policy autonomy, and sends a clear message that Washington will no longer subsidise agendas it does not support. From this perspective, multilateralism is seen less as cooperation and more as constraint.
Opponents, however, see the decision as a historic retreat that risks isolating the United States and ceding global leadership to rivals such as China and the European Union. They argue that exiting international institutions does not eliminate global problems like climate change, migration, pandemics, or cyber threats, but instead reduces America’s ability to shape collective responses. In their view, the vacuum left by the US will be filled by others with different values and priorities.
The broader implications of the withdrawals remain uncertain. Some exits may be symbolic, while others could have lasting structural effects on global governance. Legal challenges, bureaucratic resistance, and future political shifts could slow or reverse parts of the agenda. Still, taken together, the decision marks a decisive turn away from the multilateral order the United States helped build after World War II.
Whether this strategy ultimately strengthens American sovereignty or weakens American influence is likely to be debated for years to come. What is clear is that the Trump administration’s approach represents not just a policy adjustment, but a fundamental rethinking of the US role in the world, with consequences that will extend well beyond a single presidential term.
