The United States is stepping away from dozens of international organisations, marking one of the biggest retreats from global cooperation under President Donald Trump.

The decision signals a sharp shift in how Washington engages with the world and has already triggered strong reactions from governments, experts, and international institutions. In a move that has drawn attention across capitals, Trump has ordered the suspension of US support for 66 international organisations, many of which are connected to the United Nations system.

This decision was made official through an executive order signed on Wednesday (7th January), following an internal review of US participation and funding in global organisations. According to statements from the White House and the State Department, the administration believes that many of these bodies no longer work in favour of American interests. Officials argue that continued involvement has become costly and ineffective, especially at a time when the administration wants to prioritise domestic needs and redefine America’s role on the global stage.

Why the Trump Administration Chose This Path

The State Department has said that the organisations being exited are viewed as wasteful, poorly managed, and increasingly influenced by agendas that conflict with US priorities. Officials claimed that American taxpayers have been funding institutions that promote what Trump describes as a “globalist” or “woke” outlook, while providing little measurable return for the United States.

Trump has repeatedly argued that the US contributes far more money than other countries to international institutions, only to see those organisations take positions that favour rivals such as China. This belief has played a central role in shaping his broader approach to multilateral platforms since returning to office. The administration maintains that this step is about correcting what it sees as an imbalance in responsibility, influence, and outcomes.

UN Agencies Bear the Brunt of the US Exit

Most of the organisations affected by the decision are linked to the United Nations. These include agencies and panels focused on climate change, labour rights, migration, gender equality, and population health. Among the most notable withdrawals is from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty that forms the foundation of global climate negotiations and the Paris climate agreement.

By leaving the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the US becomes the only country outside the agreement. Climate experts warn that this move could weaken global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially since the US remains one of the world’s largest economies and polluters. They argue that American absence from climate talks sends a troubling signal at a time when coordinated action is seen as critical.

The administration has also decided to pull out of UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), an organisation that works on family planning, maternal health, and reproductive care in more than 150 countries. Funding for UNFPA had already been cut earlier, even though a previous State Department review found no evidence to support claims that the agency was involved in coercive abortion practices. Critics say this raises questions about how evidence-based such decisions truly are.

Departure From Other International Platforms

The pullback is not limited to the UN system. The US is also exiting several international forums beyond it, including the India–France-led International Solar Alliance. The alliance was launched in 2015 by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former French President François Hollande with the aim of promoting solar energy adoption, especially in developing countries.

Other organisations affected by the US withdrawal include the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, along with various cultural and scientific bodies operating across the Americas and Europe. Together, these exits reflect a broad rethinking of US involvement in global cooperation frameworks.

A Continuing Pattern of Global Disengagement

This is not the first time Trump has moved to pull the United States out of major international institutions. In recent years, Washington has already suspended support for the World Health Organisation, the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and UNRWA, the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees.

Rather than full disengagement, the administration has chosen a selective strategy. It continues to participate in organisations where it believes US interests are directly challenged by China. These include the International Telecommunications Union, the International Maritime Organisation, and the International Labour Organisation. Officials argue that staying involved in these areas is necessary to maintain influence where global competition is most intense.

Global Reactions and Rising Concerns

Critics say the latest decision marks a clear break from how both Republican and Democratic administrations have traditionally engaged with the United Nations and other global institutions. Analysts warn that these withdrawals could weaken international cooperation on issues such as climate change, public health, and humanitarian assistance.

Climate scientists have also expressed concern that the absence of the US may encourage other nations to slow their own commitments. “It gives nations an excuse to delay action,” said Rob Jackson of Stanford University, who heads the Global Carbon Project. Experts fear that without strong leadership from major economies, global progress on climate goals could lose momentum.

The White House’s Next Moves

Trump has defended the decision by saying it will free up taxpayer money for what he describes as more relevant priorities at home and abroad. The White House insists that the US is not turning its back on the world entirely, but instead redefining how and where it chooses to engage.

With reviews of other international commitments still ongoing, officials have hinted that more exits could follow. This has left allies and global institutions watching closely, uncertain about Washington’s next move and what it could mean for the future of international cooperation.