Donald Trump announces withdrawal from 66 global bodies, cuts off funding

A sharp turn away from international engagement

President Donald Trump has ordered the United States to pull out of 66 international and United Nations–affiliated organisations, in what officials describe as a decisive move to realign US foreign policy with domestic priorities. The withdrawals represent one of the most far-reaching retreats from multilateral cooperation in recent US history.

The decision was formalised in a presidential memorandum issued by the White House on Wednesday, following a government-wide assessment of treaties and institutions deemed incompatible with American interests. Alongside ending US participation, the order mandates an immediate halt to all financial support for the affected organisations.

Climate institutions at the centre of the exit

A substantial number of the bodies targeted are part of the UN system, including cornerstone institutions addressing climate change. Among them is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which underpins global climate negotiations, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific authority responsible for evaluating climate research worldwide.

Despite the IPCC’s role in advising governments through peer-reviewed scientific assessments, it was included in the withdrawal list, reflecting the administration’s broader scepticism toward international climate governance.

White House cites sovereignty and cost concerns

In justifying the move, the White House accused the organisations of prioritising international agendas over national interests. Officials argued that many promote policies on climate, governance and social issues that conflict with US economic goals and sovereignty, while delivering little value for American taxpayers.

“These withdrawals will end US involvement in entities that advance ideological or ineffective programmes,” the memorandum stated.

Humanitarian and Democracy bodies also affected

The scope of the withdrawals extends far beyond environmental policy. Organisations focused on democratic governance, peacebuilding, reproductive health, and civilian protection in conflict zones have also been cut. These include the UN Democracy Fund, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and UN offices addressing sexual violence and safeguarding children during war.

Critics warn that the loss of US support could significantly weaken international responses to humanitarian crises.

A familiar strategy from Trump’s playbook

Trump has consistently expressed distrust toward multilateral institutions, frequently criticising them as biased or wasteful. He has previously rejected the scientific consensus on climate change and curtailed funding to organisations he believes undermine US interests.

During his second term, the administration has already exited the Paris climate accord, declined to participate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, and withdrawn from bodies such as the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council. Funding restrictions on the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, also remain in place.

Legal questions loom over treaty withdrawals

While the US Constitution clearly sets out how treaties are approved, it offers little guidance on how they can be abandoned. Constitutional scholars note that this ambiguity could open the door to legal challenges, particularly where treaty commitments were previously ratified by the Senate.

Scientists and advocates sound the alarm

The announcement sparked strong backlash from scientific and advocacy groups. Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, condemned the decision as reckless, warning that it jeopardises global health, climate action and international stability. She described the administration’s approach as hostile to science and global cooperation.

Global influence at risk

Although the US remains a powerful force within the UN system, including its veto authority on the Security Council, analysts caution that withdrawing from so many institutions could erode Washington’s influence over global decision-making. Reduced engagement may limit the country’s ability to shape international responses to climate change, pandemics and humanitarian emergencies.

Many of the organisations now abandoned were rejoined under former President Joe Biden after Trump left them during his first term. The latest move suggests that disengagement from multilateral frameworks is no longer temporary, but a defining feature of the administration’s foreign policy direction.

Also Read: Assam BJP Slams Akhil Gogoi, Calls His Allegations ‘Imaginary Fairytales’