WASHINGTON DC – In a move that critics say could reshape global security and climate efforts for decades, the Trump administration announced Wednesday that the US will withdraw from 66 international organizations, including the Ukraine-based Science and Technology Center – a linchpin in preventing nuclear proliferation – and several major climate bodies.
The decision marks the most sweeping US pullback from multilateral institutions in modern history, signaling a foreign policy increasingly defined by selective engagement and America-first priorities.
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
“No more blood, sweat, and treasure”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement supporting the move, framing it as a long-overdue correction to what he called the US funding of “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful” international organizations.
“President Trump is clear: it is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it,” Rubio said, adding, “We will not continue expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests.”
The administration emphasized that the withdrawals are not a wholesale rejection of multilateralism, but a recalibration in line with “prudence and purpose,” prioritizing US influence over perceived ideological or inefficient initiatives.
Other Topics of Interest
US Moves to Seize Venezuela-Linked Oil Tanker as Russia Watches
The vessel, originally Bella‑1 and now renamed Marinera under a Russian flag, had slipped past a US maritime “blockade” of sanctioned tankers last month by dramatically changing course and reflagging.
Science and Technology Center in Ukraine: Strategic retreat
Among the most consequential withdrawals is the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine.
Established in the 1990s with US support, the Center has been a critical mechanism for securing nuclear and biological materials in post-Soviet states and preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Two senior Western officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the withdrawal as a tangible risk to European and global security:
“The S&T Center has been a cornerstone of regional and global nuclear security for decades. US withdrawal risks leaving sensitive materials less secure and creates a dangerous precedent for other countries,” one official told Kyiv Post.
“This isn’t just a symbolic move – there are real, tangible risks. The US has long been the linchpin in these nonproliferation efforts, and stepping away leaves a void that others may struggle to fill,” another senior Western diplomat added.
Experts note that the Center has provided training, monitoring, and oversight to prevent nuclear proliferation in Ukraine, as well as facilitating secure disposal of nuclear materials.
Without direct US involvement, these programs may face funding shortfalls, reduced oversight, and slower response to potential proliferation threats – a situation that could embolden rogue actors.
“We are now relying on other nations to pick up the slack, and that’s not a position anyone wants to be in,” one official said.
The withdrawal also carries geopolitical implications, signaling to Russia and other regional actors that US commitment to nuclear security programs in Eastern Europe is increasingly selective.
Analysts warn this could weaken deterrence structures and complicate European security planning.
Climate and global health fallout
The US will also exit key climate-focused initiatives, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Renewable Energy Agency, UN Oceans, and UN Water.
Experts warn that the withdrawals could slow international climate action and isolate the US from ongoing clean energy and climate negotiations.
In response, the SEEC Institute issued a statement emphasizing that global climate action will continue despite the US pullback:
“Climate change is real. Americans and people around the world are experiencing its accelerating impacts, and no political decision can change that fact,” the Institute said.
“Far from protecting America’s interests, leaving these agreements gives up our seat at the international decision-making table,” the Institute emphasized in a statement shared with Kyiv Post, adding, “We heard loud and clear at COP 30 in Brazil that the world is moving forward with decisive action that will allow them to seize the economic opportunities of a low carbon future, with or without the US. Today’s action only makes it more likely that we will be left behind.”
The US has historically played a leading role in climate diplomacy, dating back to Senate approval of the UNFCCC in 1992.
Analysts say stepping away now risks ceding technological and economic leadership in low-carbon energy.
Strategic realignment or isolation?
Senior Western officials emphasized that the withdrawals signal a selective approach to multilateralism that prioritizes US interests at the expense of global coordination:
“Other countries will notice that the US is picking and choosing its commitments. It undermines trust and complicates cooperation on everything from climate to nuclear security,” one diplomat said.
All executive departments and agencies have been directed to implement the withdrawals “as soon as possible,” though officials acknowledge the logistical complexity of disentangling the US from decades of multilateral commitments.
For allies and adversaries alike, the message is clear: Washington will continue to engage internationally only when it sees direct strategic benefit, while stepping away from institutions it perceives as mismanaged, ideological, or contrary to US sovereignty.
As Washington steps back from institutions that have long anchored nuclear security, climate cooperation, and global governance, allies and rivals alike are left to recalibrate.
For the US, the message is clear: international engagement will proceed only on American terms, and the consequences – for nonproliferation, climate leadership, and diplomatic credibility – may unfold for years to come.