The US President signed a presidential memorandum directing the withdrawal of the US from 66 international organisations.
In January 2026, US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum that sent shockwaves through the international diplomatic community. The directive ordered the US withdrawal from 66 international organisations, marking a major retreat from multilateral engagement. This action targets 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN bodies, reshaping America's role in global governance.
The administration's rationale centers on protecting American sovereignty, eliminating spending, and rejecting what it terms "globalist agendas" that conflict with national interests. However, this pullback raises questions about the future of international cooperation, climate action, and the evolving global power balance.
Understanding the Scope of Withdrawal
Climate and Environmental Bodies
The exits involve multiple climate governance institutions. The United States is withdrawing from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the foundational international treaty from 1992 that underpins all global climate agreements. This places America outside the institutional framework that governs climate diplomacy worldwide, making it the only nation on Earth not party to this convention.
Additionally, the US is exiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Green Climate Fund, the International Solar Alliance, and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). These withdrawals sever America's formal participation in the architecture of global climate cooperation.
Social Policy Organizations
The administration has also targeted organizations focused on gender equality and population issues. The US is withdrawing from UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent. The White House characterizes these entities as promoting "ideological programmes" that conflict with American values and social structures.
Security and Peacebuilding Entities
The withdrawal list includes security bodies such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the UN Peacebuilding Commission, and the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. This signals a selective preference for unilateral or bilateral security arrangements over multilateral coordination.
Strategic Rationale: America First in Practice
The Trump administration has articulated four criteria driving the US withdrawal from 66 international organisations:
- Sovereignty concerns: Organizations that impose pressure on US domestic policies are being viewed as constraints on American independence.
- Economic alignment: Entities promoting decarbonization or energy transitions are deemed disadvantageous to US fossil fuel interests and economic growth.
- Fiscal responsibility: The administration frames its position around prudent use of public funds, arguing that financial contributions to large international or multilateral bureaucracies are unjustified when their outcomes are perceived as inefficient, duplicative, or insufficiently aligned with tangible benefits for American taxpayers.
- Ideological divergence: The administration expresses reservations about organisations that prioritise "globalist agendas", suggesting that these approaches may not always align with its policy preferences, national priorities, or views on appropriate regulatory scope.
Implications for Global Climate Action
The climate withdrawals carry consequences. By exiting the UNFCCC, the United States loses its seat at annual Conference of the Parties (COP) summits where global climate rules are negotiated. This means America cannot influence decisions on carbon markets, loss and damage funds, or emissions standards that will affect US corporations operating internationally.
The withdrawal from the IPCC eliminates American influence over the scientific assessments that inform global climate policy.
The exit from the Green Climate Fund, the vehicle for assisting developing nations with climate adaptation, threatens the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment. This broken promise damages trust between developed and developing nations, creating opportunities for China to position itself as the development partner through its Belt and Road Initiative.
Impact on India's Strategic Interests
International Solar Alliance Setback
The US exit from the International Solar Alliance (ISA) is significant for India. The ISA, a flagship initiative of the Prime Minister of India, headquartered in New Delhi, represents one of the few international organizations based in India.
American withdrawal from this India-led initiative signals that US domestic energy ideology takes precedence over strategic partnerships in the renewable energy sector. This further complicates efforts to strengthen the India-US relationship.
Opportunities in Multilateral Leadership
However, these withdrawals also create openings for India to assume leadership in international institutions. As the world's most populous democracy and a major emerging economy, India can position itself as a bridge between developed and developing nations, especially in climate finance and sustainable development.
India's engagement with organizations like the ISA and IRENA allows it to shape global renewable energy standards and technology deployment, advancing its own clean energy targets while building diplomatic influence.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
The execution of these withdrawals faces legal hurdles. The UN Secretary-General has reminded the United States that assessed contributions to the UN regular budget represent legal obligations under the UN Charter, a Senate-ratified treaty.
While the President can terminate executive agreements like the Paris Accord, withdrawing from Senate-ratified treaties like the UNFCCC raises constitutional questions. The Constitution of US provides mechanisms for entering treaties but is silent on exiting them, creating grounds for legal challenges.
If the US refuses to pay its assessed UN contributions, it risks losing voting rights in the General Assembly under Article 19 of the UN Charter if arrears equal two years of dues.
Conclusion
The US withdrawal from 66 international organisations marks a shift from American stewardship of the post-World War II global order toward transactional, nationalist foreign policy. This creates both challenges and opportunities for India.
The weakening of multilateral climate cooperation threatens global efforts to address environmental challenges that affect developing and least developed nations. The reduction in US funding for development, health, and humanitarian organizations creates resource gaps that must be filled by other donors or through financing mechanisms.
However, these developments also position India to assume leadership in multilateral institutions at a time when its economic and diplomatic weight continues to grow. By championing reformed, effective multilateralism that addresses the concerns of both developed and developing nations, India can help build a more representative and functional international system.
Master Digital Age Governance & Technology Trends with VisionIAS Comprehensive Current Affairs →
US Withdrawal from 66 International Organisations FAQs
1. How many international organizations did the US withdraw from in January 2026?
Ans. 66 international organisations.
2. What are the four criteria driving the US withdrawal decision?
Ans. Sovereignty concerns, economic alignment, fiscal responsibility, and ideological divergence.
3. What is the main reason cited for the US withdrawal from these organizations?
Ans. Protecting American sovereignty and rejecting globalist agendas.
4. Which India-led organization did the US exit?
Ans. International Solar Alliance (ISA).
5. How many UN entities are included in the US withdrawal?
Ans. 31 UN entities.