Trump Admin Withdraws US from 66 Global Groups, Including UN Climate Bodies

Getty Images

The Scope of US Withdrawals: 66 International Groups

Let’s dive into the latest shakeup in US foreign policy: President Donald Trump has officially pulled the United States out of 66 international organizations, a move that’s sending ripples across global diplomatic circles. Nearly half of these groups are United Nations-affiliated bodies, including key players in the fight against climate change like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This treaty is the backbone of every coordinated global effort to curb rising temperatures and mitigate global warming, so its inclusion on the withdrawal list is particularly significant. Beyond climate action, the affected groups also cover a wide range of critical global issues, from peacekeeping to public health initiatives.

White House Rationale: Prioritizing US Interests Over Globalist Agendas

The White House didn’t hold back on its reasoning for these sweeping withdrawals, stating plainly that many of these organizations “no longer serve American interests” and push “ineffective or hostile agendas.” In an official statement, administration officials emphasized that this decision will put an end to taxpayer dollars flowing toward groups that prioritize globalist goals over US national priorities. They also called out entities that promote what they describe as radical climate policies, global governance frameworks, and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength. For the Trump team, this is all about fiscal responsibility and ensuring American resources are used to benefit American citizens first.

Climate Change Focus: Key UN Bodies on the List

For anyone following global climate action, this news hits especially hard. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the independent expert group that provides the world with authoritative, peer-reviewed climate science assessments—was among the organizations targeted in this round of withdrawals. It’s not just climate-focused groups either; other affected UN entities work on critical issues like peace and democracy promotion, family planning services, maternal and child health initiatives, and combating sexual violence in conflict zones. This broad sweep of withdrawals shows the administration’s willingness to step back from a wide range of longstanding global commitments.

Precedent of Skepticism and Disengagement

This move isn’t out of the blue for the Trump administration. Trump has a well-documented history of defunding multilateral groups he disagrees with, and he’s repeatedly rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus on man-made climate change, infamously calling it a “hoax.” Last year, he made headlines again by formally withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement—often hailed as the world’s most comprehensive climate accord—and choosing not to send a delegation to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil. This latest batch of withdrawals just amplifies that consistent pattern of disengagement from global cooperative efforts.

Legal Uncertainty and Public Backlash

There’s also a cloud of legal uncertainty hanging over these withdrawals. The US Constitution clearly states that presidents can join international treaties with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, but it doesn’t explicitly outline the process for leaving them. That means Trump’s decision could face significant legal challenges in the coming months as experts debate the executive branch’s authority to unilaterally withdraw from such agreements. Critics are already speaking out forcefully: Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the move a “new low,” slamming the administration as “authoritarian” and “anti-science” for prioritizing ideological agendas over people’s well-being and global stability.

The Fiscal Review Behind the Memorandum

The official memorandum formalizing these withdrawals was signed on Wednesday following a White House review that deemed the 66 organizations a “waste of taxpayer dollars.” Administration officials stress that this decision is rooted in a commitment to fiscal prudence and ensuring that American tax money isn’t wasted on programs that don’t align with national interests. However, many global policy experts warn that stepping away from these organizations will weaken the US’s global influence, make it harder to address shared challenges like climate change, and leave critical gaps in global cooperation that other nations may step in to fill.