by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Jan 09, 2026
The United States is walking away from 66 international organizations and UN entities in what the White House portrays as a purge of “wasteful” and “anti-American” institutions-but only a small subset of exits has immediate, structural consequences for how US agencies do their work. The long tail of obscure, dormant or marginal forums padded into the list offers political cover, creating an impression of sweeping house-cleaning while masking the significance of a few core withdrawals around climate governance, security coordination and development finance.A long list padded with small targets
President Donald Trump’s memorandum instructs all executive agencies to “take immediate steps” to withdraw from 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN entities judged “contrary to the interests of the United States.” The State Department review that fed into this decision was advertised as covering all international organizations and treaties with US participation or funding, but officials acknowledge the process remains ongoing, signalling this is only a first sweep.
Analysts note that many of the 66 listed bodies are advisory panels, technical networks or relatively low-impact programmes that do little to shape core US policy day-to-day. Their inclusion helps bulk out the headline number and supports the administration’s narrative about “redundant,” “mismanaged” or “captured” institutions, even as a much smaller cluster of exits quietly rewires key channels for climate diplomacy, security cooperation and multilateral spending.
The climate architecture: hitting treaty and science together
At the heart of the list are two decisions that strike directly at the global climate architecture the US has relied on for three decades.
UNFCCC: Withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change severs the foundational treaty framework for global climate negotiations, including the processes that underpin the Paris Agreement’s rules on transparency, carbon markets and finance. US climate envoys and technical staff lose the primary venue where they help write the rules other countries must follow, forcing any future US administration to negotiate from the outside or rebuild trust if it seeks to rejoin.
IPCC: Exiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change removes the main channel through which US federal scientists shape consensus climate assessments that courts, markets and regulators use as a reference point. Agencies such as EPA, NOAA and DOE can continue independent research, but with less influence over the global baseline that underpins social cost of carbon calculations, risk assessments and climate-related rulemaking.
Taken together, these moves weaken both the legal and scientific pillars that US climate policy execution has leaned on, at home and abroad.
Energy, tech and security coordination stripped back
A second cluster of exits cuts into practical cooperation on energy systems and security.
IRENA, International Solar Alliance and UN-Energy: By leaving the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance and UN-Energy, the US steps away from central hubs that coordinate grid integration, renewable standards and project pipelines for emerging markets. That reduces the ability of US agencies and firms to shape technical norms, influence clean-energy investment patterns and plug into multi-donor power-sector programmes aligned with US strategic interests.
ReCAAP and security forums: Exiting the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia, the Global Counterterrorism Forum and the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise shrinks the multilateral toolkit for US security, law-enforcement and cyber agencies. Those bodies function as standing channels for incident reporting, joint training, model legislation and soft-law norms; withdrawing makes it easier for rival powers or regional blocs to shape the rules of the road on terrorism, cyber operations and maritime security without US input.
Development, population and peacebuilding tools downgraded
A third set of exits goes after flexible multilateral funds and agencies that US diplomats and development officials use to work in politically sensitive environments.
UNFPA: Formal withdrawal from the UN Population Fund entrenches earlier funding cuts and narrows the options for USAID and health agencies to support reproductive health and demographic programmes through a widely used multilateral platform. Practitioners warn this will have “profound” impacts on services in fragile states and make it harder to mount politically low-profile interventions where bilateral US branding can be a liability.
UN Democracy Fund, Peacebuilding Fund and related mechanisms: Stepping back from these instruments deprives embassy country teams of pooled, relatively discreet financing channels for governance support, conflict prevention and electoral integrity. More of this work will either be scaled down or pushed through overtly bilateral programmes, which are often more visible and politically contentious.
A template for deeper future cuts
Officials close to the process and outside observers stress that the review of international bodies is not finished, and that the current list will not be the last word on US participation in multilateral institutions. With a large pool of low-profile committees and networks still available, future rounds can always add fresh “wasteful” or “redundant” targets to maintain political cover while attaching exits from more central organizations that directly shape US policy execution.
Memo in full
Related Links
White House
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com