President Donald Trump on January 7, 2026, signed a presidential memorandum directing the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, treaties, and cooperative bodies, marking one of the broadest single retrenchments from the multilateral system by Washington. 

The decision follows a year-long State Department review launched under Executive Order 14199 in February 2025, which assessed U.S. participation across all international institutions. 

The memorandum instructs executive departments and agencies to cease participation and funding “as soon as possible,” subject to legal and treaty constraints.

The scope is significant. Of the 66 entities identified, 31 are affiliated with the United Nations system and 35 fall outside it. 

The action builds on precedents from Trump’s first term and the opening phase of his second, including earlier withdrawals from the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, and the defunding of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

A notable share of the withdrawals centers on climate and environmental governance. 

The memorandum includes the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 treaty that underpins global climate negotiations and counts nearly 200 parties, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s primary climate science body. 

Other affected organizations include the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Beyond climate, the list spans agencies focused on population, gender equity, labor, and governance. 

These include the UN Population Fund, UN Women, UN Water, UN Oceans, the United Nations University, and bodies such as the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Commodity and sectoral groups, including the International Cotton Advisory Committee and the International Tropical Timber Organization, are also named.

The administration frames the decision as a cost-saving and sovereignty-protecting measure. 

The White House and State Department argue that many of the targeted bodies are “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful,” promoting agendas at odds with U.S. interests. Officials cite opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates, gender equity campaigns, and climate initiatives as key drivers behind the pullback.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States would reject “globalist projects” and engage internationally only where participation directly advances American prosperity and security. 

Resources, officials argue, will be redirected toward arenas seen as strategically competitive with China, including standard-setting bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union and the International Maritime Organization.

Critics view the move as a sharp contraction of U.S. influence at a moment when global coordination is under strain. 

Environmental experts warn that leaving the UNFCCC and IPCC risks isolating the world’s largest historical emitter from climate governance, potentially ceding leadership to competitors. 

Others point to diminished U.S. sway over policy frameworks and investment flows that collectively shape trillions of dollars in global activity.

Analysts note that the United States would become the first country to exit the UNFCCC outright, underscoring the symbolic weight of the decision. 

The administration acknowledges that withdrawals will unfold over time, depending on treaty provisions and domestic legal processes, and that the full list of affected bodies is detailed in the official presidential memorandum published by the White House.