Trump Governance Announces Sweeping Withdrawal from International Organizations, Signaling Shift in US Foreign Policy
The United States, under President Donald Trump, is dramatically reshaping its relationship with the international community, announcing the withdrawal from 66 organizations deemed no longer serving American interests.The move, confirmed on January 7, 2026, represents a important departure from decades of US engagement and a potential destabilization of global cooperation.
The White House, via a post on the social media platform X, revealed the decision, stating the targeted organizations are “mismanaged, needless, costly, ineffective, instrumentalized by actors pursuing objectives contrary to our own, or threatening the sovereignty, liberties, and general prosperity of our nation.” The majority of the targeted organizations are agencies,commissions,and advisory groups focused on areas like climate,labor,and initiatives the administration characterizes as overly accommodating to diversity and “woke” agendas.
“We are witnessing the crystallization of the american approach to multilateralism, which boils down to ‘my way or the highway’,” noted an analyst at the International Crisis Group. “ItS a very clear vision: one of international cooperation dictated by Washington.”
This latest action builds upon a pattern of disengagement initiated during trump’s previous term, which included suspending support for organizations like the World Health Association (WHO), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the near East (UNRWA), the UN Human Rights Council, and UNESCO. The administration has increasingly adopted a selective approach to its UN contributions, prioritizing operations and agencies aligned with President Trump’s agenda.
The withdrawal from the UNFCCC, a foundational treaty for all international climate agreements established at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is particularly concerning. Experts warn it could hinder global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by “giving other nations a pretext to delay their own actions and commitments,” stated Rob Jackson, a climatologist at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project. [Placeholder for chart showing projected global emissions with and without US participation in UNFCCC].
The decision also extends to the UN’s scientific committee on climate change (IPCC), a leading authority on climate science, as well as organizations dedicated to environmental protection, such as the International Renewable Energy Agency and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
In a September 2025 address to the UN General Assembly, President Trump sparked controversy by dismissing climate science as “the greatest hoax in history” and praising “clean and beautiful” coal. This rhetoric underscores the administration’s skepticism towards established scientific consensus.
Beyond climate, the administration is targeting principles enshrined in the UN’s Enduring Growth Goals, including gender equality. The decree mandates the US withdrawal from the United Nations Population Fund, specializing in maternal and child health, and UN Women. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), whose head, Rebeca grynspan, is a candidate to succeed Antonio Guterres as UN Secretary-General, is also on the list.
A senior official accused the targeted organizations of promoting a “progressive ideology,” specifically denouncing campaigns for “gender equality” and “climate orthodoxy.”
This approach represents a major rupture with previous administrations – both Republican and Democratic – in their handling of relations with the UN, further straining an already crisis-ridden organization and forcing it to implement further staff and programme reductions.
“This is a new sign that this authoritarian and anti-science administration is determined to sacrifice the well-being of the population and destabilize international cooperation,” lamented Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Agence France-Presse (AFP).
Legal challenges to the withdrawals are anticipated. “We believe it is illegal for the president to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that requires a two-thirds vote of the senate,” asserted Jean Su, an attorney for the Centre for Biological Diversity, outlining potential legal options.
If President Trump previously withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement during his first term – before Joe Biden rejoined – “leaving the UNFCCC is radically diffrent,” Su explained. The move raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential authority in foreign policy and the future of US engagement with the international community.
