U.S. Withdrawal from 66 International Organizations

On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, entities, conventions, and treaties identified as contrary to U.S. interests. This directive follows Executive Order 14199, issued on February 4, 2025, which launched a comprehensive review by the Secretary of State into all aspects of U.S. involvement with international bodies.

Scope of U.S. Withdrawal

The withdrawal encompasses a broad array of organizations, including 31 entities affiliated with the United Nations. Notable examples are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), UN Women, the UN Population Fund, and multiple agencies focused on climate, gender, and development. In addition, the U.S. will exit 35 non-UN organizations, such as the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance, and the International Tropical Timber Organization, as well as advisory groups related to conservation and cotton.

US: “These organizations are wasteful, ineffective, redundant, or mismanaged”

The Trump administration characterizes these organizations as wasteful, ineffective, redundant, or mismanaged. It argues that many advance agendas—such as “climate orthodoxy,” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, and gender equity campaigns—that allegedly undermine U.S. sovereignty and misuse taxpayer funds. As a result, the United States will cease all participation, funding, and support for these entities as quickly as possible. The review of additional organizations is ongoing.

Public Response and Future Considerations

The targeted withdrawals include the 31 UN-linked entities such as UNFCCC and IPCC, along with 35 other organizations found to be redundant or misaligned with U.S. priorities, as determined by the recent review. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the initiative, emphasizing the billions in taxpayer dollars previously allocated to what he described as ineffective international bureaucracies promoting progressive agendas. Supporters have hailed these moves as exercises in fiscal responsibility and protection of national sovereignty. According to the White House, the reallocation of resources is designed to address domestic priorities, such as border security, and further exits from international groups may occur as the ongoing review progresses.

Let’s break it down. Back in February 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14199, kicking off a no-holds-barred review of our entanglements with these so-called “international” bodies. Fast forward to now, and the results are in: they are pulling out of 66 outfits deemed wasteful, ineffective, or downright harmful to U.S. interests. That includes 35 non-UN organizations and a slew of UN-affiliated ones, like those pushing radical climate agendas that cripple our energy sector and ship jobs overseas.

Think about it—the UN’s population agency, climate treaties like the UNFCCC, and a host of other alphabet-soup entities that do little more than lecture us on “global cooperation” while picking our pockets. This is pure gold. The U.S. has been footing the bill for these globalist clubs to the tune of tens of billions annually—money that could be reinvested in American infrastructure, tax cuts, or bolstering our military without strings attached. We’re talking about ending funding streams that prop up corrupt bureaucracies promoting policies that hurt our economy, like burdensome regulations and wealth transfers to developing nations that compete unfairly with our workers.

Cut the fat, prioritize domestic growth, and stop subsidizing anti-American ideologies. Imagine the boost to our GDP if we redirect those dollars toward energy independence or small business incentives instead of funding endless conferences on “sustainable development” that never sustain anything but fat salaries for elites. Anti-globalists have long railed against these organizations as Trojan horses for one-world governance. They erode sovereignty, impose mandates that bypass Congress, and push progressive agendas that clash with conservative values— from climate hysteria that kills coal jobs to population policies that undermine family structures. Trump’s move is a direct rebuke to the Davos crowd and their dreams of a borderless utopia where America plays second fiddle.

By withdrawing, they are reclaiming control over their borders, their laws, and their wallet. No more letting foreign entities dictate our trade policies or environmental standards; it’s America deciding what’s best for Americans. Of course, the liberal media and globalist apologists are in meltdown mode, calling it a “retreat from cooperation” or “embarrassing.” But let’s call it what it is: smart business. In the private sector, you don’t keep pouring cash into failing ventures; you cut losses and pivot to winners. This withdrawal will strengthen our negotiating position globally—why pay dues to clubs that don’t serve us when we can strike bilateral deals on our terms? It’s already sending shockwaves through markets, with energy stocks poised for gains as they shed climate shackles that have held back domestic production. In the end, this is Trump at his best: Bold, unapologetic leadership that puts America’s financial health and conservative principles front and centre. The US spent decades haemorrhaging money and influence to these international leeches—now it’s time to build back stronger at home.

Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing immediate cessation of US participation and funding in 66 organizations: 31 UN-affiliated entities and 35 non-UN bodies. These aren’t minor committees – many are heavyweight players pushing climate mandates, gender equity programs, migration frameworks, and global governance initiatives that often conflict with national interests. Key examples from the UN side include:

·       The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundation of global climate talks.

·       The UN Population Fund.

·       The UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

·       Various regional economic commissions and bodies like the UN Democracy Fund.

Non-UN withdrawals hit groups like:

·       The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

·       The International Renewable Energy Agency.

·       The International Solar Alliance.

·       The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The full lists highlight a clear pattern: entities heavy on ideological agendas around climate alarmism, “sustainable development,” and supranational coordination

Reclaiming Sovereignty from Globalist Agendas

This isn’t just about money; it’s about freedom. Too many of these organizations push a one-size-fits-all globalist vision: binding climate targets that hamstring energy production, migration policies that erode borders, and “gender” or “equity” programs that impose ideological conformity. By exiting, the US rejects the erosion of national decision-making in favor of unelected international elites. As someone outside the US, I’ve seen how these bodies exert soft power over smaller nations – leveraging funding to enforce compliance. Trump’s move weakens that leverage, reminding the world that true cooperation should be voluntary and mutually beneficial, not coercive.

Sovereignty and Liberty Threats: Taxation Without Representation

Forget the dollars for a moment—this is about power. The IMO’s levy would impose fines and port bans on non-compliant ships, enforceable via international law, without a single vote. It’s taxation without representation; UN mandarins deciding global tax policy. This as the slippery slope to a world government, where climate hysteria justifies endless interventions—from digital IDs to resource rationing. Once the precedent’s set, it’s game over. Next up? A “global wealth tax” or aviation levy. This erodes the very sovereignty that built prosperous nations, replacing it with top-down control that punishes innovation and rewards compliance.

Climate Alarmism Exposed: Junk Science Driving Junk Policy

The climate change narrative is false, a hoax and it’s overhyped, with models that flop harder than a bad hedge fund bet. Shipping’s 3% emissions slice? Negligible against natural variability, yet it justifies this leviathan. The UN’s own data shows adaptation (better tech, efficient routes) cuts emissions 50% cheaper than taxes, without the bureaucracy.  This proposal isn’t about the planet; it’s virtue-signaling for elites who jet to Davos while lecturing the rest of us on footprints. Diverting capital to UN funds starves real investments—like nuclear or market-driven R&D—in favor of cronies and green grifts. It’s malinvestment on a global scale, echoing the Solyndra debacle but with trillions at stake.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe