U.S. to exit 66 international organisations as Trump deepens retreat from global cooperation

What happened: The U.S. administration under President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from 66 international organisations, including major UN-linked bodies.

Why it matters now: The move signals a sharp escalation in Washington’s pullback from multilateral diplomacy at a time of global instability.

What changes for people: Reduced U.S. funding and engagement could affect climate talks, humanitarian aid, health programmes, and global governance norms.

Who is affected: UN agencies, partner countries, aid-dependent populations, global climate initiatives, and U.S. allies.

The United States is preparing to exit 66 international organisations, according to official government communications, marking one of the most sweeping withdrawals from global institutions in modern U.S. history. The decision reinforces President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach, reshaping Washington’s role in climate policy, development aid, and international rule-making.

What the U.S. is exiting

According to U.S. administration officials, the withdrawal list includes the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN framework treaty that underpins international climate negotiations, among dozens of other multilateral bodies.

The policy reflects a broader White House review that concluded many organisations were “misaligned with U.S. interests or values”, officials said in briefings to lawmakers and diplomatic partners.

The withdrawals are expected to be executed through executive authority, budget cuts, and formal notification processes already underway.

Why this decision matters

International relations experts warn that the scale of the pullback is significant.

Climate governance: Exiting the treaty architecture behind global climate talks reduces U.S. influence over future emissions rules, financing frameworks, and climate accountability.

Public health and humanitarian aid: UNFPA supports maternal health, reproductive care, and population data in crisis zones. A U.S. exit could weaken already strained services.

Global security and diplomacy: Reduced U.S. participation may create leadership gaps that other powers, including China and Russia, are likely to fill.

A former senior U.S. diplomat said the move could “limit Washington’s ability to shape global standards while still being affected by them.”

Administration’s rationale

White House officials argue that multilateral organisations often impose financial burdens and policy constraints on the U.S. without delivering proportional benefits.

In internal assessments cited by officials, several bodies were described as politicised, inefficient, or hostile to U.S. policy positions, particularly on climate and social policy.

The administration has emphasised that withdrawal does not prevent bilateral cooperation with individual countries.

International reaction and concerns

UN officials and allied governments have privately expressed concern over the decision, according to diplomatic sources.

A senior UN representative noted that U.S. funding and political backing remain critical for global programmes addressing climate adaptation, refugee crises, and public health emergencies.

European diplomats warned that reduced U.S. engagement could slow collective responses to climate risks, pandemics, and conflict-driven displacement.

What it means for the global order

The withdrawals deepen a long-running debate about the future of multilateralism.

For developing nations, the loss of U.S. participation could mean funding gaps and reduced diplomatic leverage.

For U.S. allies, it complicates coordination on shared global challenges.

For Washington, it narrows formal influence while increasing reliance on unilateral or ad-hoc partnerships.