WASHINGTON D.C. — Marking a definitive rupture with decades of multilateral diplomacy, President Donald Trump signed a high-stakes White House memorandum on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, directing the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations.
The move, which targets 31 United Nations (UN) bodies and 35 non-UN entities, is the most significant “America First” policy action since Trump’s return to the Oval Office. The administration argues these bodies are “wasteful,” “anti-American,” and promote “globalist agendas” that undermine U.S. sovereignty.
Key Targeted Organizations
The list of exits is extensive, focusing heavily on climate science, gender equality, and regional development. Notable withdrawals include:
- Climate & Energy: The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
- Social & Gender Policy: UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent.
- Trade & Law: The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Law Commission.
- Security & Migration: The Global Counterterrorism Forum and the Global Forum on Migration and Development.
A Full List of the “Withdrawal 66”
| Category | Primary Targeted Organizations |
| United Nations (31) | UNFCCC, UN Women, UNFPA, UN Water, UN Oceans, UN Energy, International Law Commission, Peacebuilding Commission, UN University, ECOSOC Regional Commissions (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Western Asia). |
| Non-UN Bodies (35) | IPCC, IRENA, Global Counterterrorism Forum, Colombo Plan Council, Freedom Online Coalition, Global Forum on Migration and Development, International Development Law Organization, International Lead and Zinc Study Group. |
Strategic Impact: Climate and Sovereignty
The most controversial aspect of the memorandum is the exit from the UNFCCC. While Trump had already initiated a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, leaving the UNFCCC-the foundational treaty for all global climate negotiations-is unprecedented. Critics argue this move effectively removes the U.S. from the global “climate table” entirely, ceding leadership and green-energy market dominance to China.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the decision, stating that these organizations serve a “globalist project” and have become captured by “progressive ideology” detached from American national interests.
| Sector | Key Organizations Exiting | Administration Reason |
| Climate | UNFCCC, IPCC, International Solar Alliance | “Radical climate orthodoxy” |
| Economy | UNCTAD, International Trade Centre | “Ineffective use of taxpayer funds” |
| Human Rights | UN Women, UNFPA | “Promoting ideological/woke agendas” |
| Regional | Economic Commissions for Africa & Asia | “Redundant and mismanaged” |
A Pattern of Disengagement
This mass exit comes just as Trump approaches the first anniversary of his second term (January 20, 2026). In his first year back, he has already:
- Re-exited the World Health Organization (WHO).
- Withdrawn from UNESCO for a second time.
- Halted funding for UNRWA and the UN Human Rights Council.
- Questioned NATO’s Article 5, sparking deep anxiety among European allies.
Strategy Comparison: 2017 vs. 2026
While the first Trump administration (2017–2021) was characterised by “surgical” strikes on high-profile targets, the 2026 strategy is a “wholesale” abandonment of the multilateral system.
| Feature | First Term (2017–2021) | Second Term (2025–2026) |
| Scope | Selective (e.g., WHO, Paris Agreement, UNESCO). | Systemic (66 organizations in a single memorandum). |
| Legal Depth | Exit from specific agreements. | Exit from foundational treaties (like the UNFCCC). |
| Fiscal Target | Freezing specific budget lines. | Rescinding all funding and participation across entire sectors. |
| Allied Response | Shock and attempt to “wait it out.” | Extreme alarm; allies are now forming “US-free” coalitions. |
| Primary Goal | Negotiating “better deals.” | Full disentanglement from global governance. |
Global Reaction and Consequences
The international community has reacted with a mix of alarm and resignation. Environmental groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists called the move a “new low” for global stability. Meanwhile, some U.S. lawmakers argue that by leaving these bodies, the U.S. loses its ability to reform them from within, potentially allowing adversaries to fill the power vacuum.
As the U.S. ceases funding for these 66 entities, the financial shortfall is expected to trigger immediate staffing cuts and program cancellations across the UN system, particularly in humanitarian and development sectors in Africa and Southeast Asia.
