The Trump administration announced this week that the United States will withdraw from 66 international organizations, marking one of the largest pullbacks from global cooperation in modern U.S. history. Nearly half of the organizations are connected to the United Nations, while the rest are independent international groups.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending U.S. participation and funding after a government-wide review of international memberships. According to the White House and the State Department, the administration believes many of these organizations are “redundant, mismanaged, wasteful, or captured by political agendas” that conflict with U.S. interests.
Many of the targeted organizations focus on climate change, migration, labor rights, gender equality, and environmental protection. The administration has repeatedly criticized such efforts as promoting diversity and so-called “woke” initiatives. Officials also argued that some organizations threaten U.S. sovereignty or fail to deliver clear benefits to American taxpayers.
Heavy Focus on the United Nations
A large portion of the withdrawals involve U.N. agencies, commissions, and advisory bodies. These include groups focused on economic development, peacebuilding, children in conflict zones, gender equality, urban development, population health, and climate policy. The U.S. is also leaving the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty that underpins global climate negotiations and the Paris climate agreement.
The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992, brings together nearly 200 countries to coordinate climate action and support developing nations. Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement during his first term and is now pulling the country out of the broader treaty itself.
Climate experts warn that the move could slow global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists say the U.S., as one of the world’s largest emitters and economies, plays a critical role in addressing climate change. Without U.S. participation, other countries may delay or weaken their own commitments.
Former White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy called the decision “shortsighted and embarrassing,” arguing that it gives up U.S. influence over trillions of dollars in global investments and policies.
Non-U.N. Organizations Also Affected
The administration is also exiting dozens of non-U.N. groups, including organizations related to renewable energy, democracy promotion, counterterrorism, internet freedom, scientific research, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation. Some of the more notable exits include the International Renewable Energy Agency, the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Other departures include research and policy groups focused on mining, forestry, biodiversity, energy, and climate science.
A Broader Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy
This decision continues a broader pattern under Trump of selectively engaging with international institutions. The administration previously suspended or withdrew support from the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees. Instead of broad multilateral cooperation, the administration has taken what officials describe as an “à la carte” approach—supporting only organizations that directly align with Trump’s priorities.
Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group described the approach as “my way or the highway,” saying it represents a major shift from how both Republican and Democratic administrations have traditionally engaged with the U.N.
The pullback has already had real-world effects. Many nongovernmental organizations have closed projects after U.S. foreign aid was cut, and the U.N. itself has been forced to reduce staff and programs.
Looking Ahead
Despite the withdrawals, U.S. officials say the country will remain engaged in select international bodies where it sees strategic competition with China, such as agencies that set global standards for telecommunications, shipping, and labor.
Still, critics argue that leaving so many organizations weakens U.S. leadership and influence on global issues ranging from climate change to human rights. Supporters of the move, however, say it puts American interests first and reduces spending on institutions they believe no longer serve the country’s needs.
As the U.S. steps back from much of the international system it helped build, the long-term impact on global cooperation—and America’s role in it—remains uncertain.