Trump Orders Sweeping Withdrawal From International Institutions
- Olga Nesterova
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
A systematic dismantling of U.S. multilateral engagement — and what it means for global stability.
In a move with far-reaching consequences for global governance, diplomacy, climate policy, human rights, and international law, Donald J. Trump has issued a memorandum directing the United States to withdraw from — or cease funding and participation in — dozens of international organizations, conventions, and treaty bodies.
The directive, released today and ordered for publication in the Federal Register, represents one of the most expansive retreats from multilateral engagement in modern U.S. history.
It is not a symbolic gesture. It is an operational order.
What the memorandum does — plainly
The memorandum instructs all executive departments and agencies to immediately effectuate U.S. withdrawal from a sweeping list of international bodies deemed “contrary to the interests of the United States,” following a review conducted under a prior executive order.
The scope is extraordinary.
It includes:
Climate and environmental science institutions
Human rights and gender equality bodies
Conflict-prevention and peacebuilding mechanisms
International legal and justice institutions
Development, migration, and humanitarian coordination platforms
Cultural, educational, and scientific organizations
For United Nations entities, “withdrawal” is defined as ceasing participation or funding to the extent permitted by law — a formulation that signals aggressive disengagement even where formal treaty withdrawal may be constrained.
A targeted assault on the multilateral system
This is not a random list.
The organizations named form the infrastructure of the post-World War II international order — the very system the United States helped design, fund, and lead for decades.
Among those targeted:
Climate governance frameworks, including the UN climate architecture
Humanitarian protection mechanisms for women, children, and civilians in conflict
Peacebuilding institutions designed to prevent wars before they erupt
International legal bodies addressing war crimes and accountability
Scientific panels that inform global policy on biodiversity, ecosystems, and climate risk
Taken together, the withdrawals amount to a deliberate unwinding of U.S. engagement with rules-based global cooperation.
Climate, gender, democracy — all on the chopping block
The memorandum eliminates U.S. participation in bodies addressing:
Climate change and renewable energy coordination
Gender equality and women’s empowerment
Democratic governance and electoral integrity
Migration and displacement
Oceans, water security, and sustainable development
These are not fringe institutions. They are core mechanisms through which states coordinate responses to shared global risks.
The message is unmistakable: the U.S. federal government is stepping away from collective problem-solving in favor of unilateralism.
Strategic consequences — not just moral ones
Supporters of the move frame it as a defense of sovereignty.
But the strategic implications are stark:
Loss of influence: The U.S. vacates seats at tables where global norms are set — allowing rivals to fill the vacuum.
Reduced intelligence and coordination: Many of these bodies function as early-warning systems for conflict, instability, pandemics, and environmental collapse.
Weakened alliances: Allies who remain invested in multilateral institutions are forced to recalibrate cooperation with Washington.
Soft-power erosion: U.S. credibility as a defender of international law, human rights, and democratic norms takes a direct hit.
This is not cost-free disengagement. It is a strategic withdrawal with compounding effects.
A pattern, not an anomaly
This memorandum follows a clear trajectory in Trump-era foreign policy:
Skepticism toward international law
Hostility to multilateral institutions
Preference for transactional, bilateral power politics
Framing global cooperation as a liability rather than an asset
What is new is the scale and precision of this action. It is not one withdrawal — it is dozens, executed simultaneously, across nearly every domain of global governance.
The broader signal to the world
At a time of escalating global crises — war, climate instability, displacement, authoritarian resurgence — the United States is not reforming the system.
It is walking away from it.
The question now is not whether this will reshape international cooperation. It will.
The question is who will shape what comes next — and whether the United States intends to have a voice in that future at all.
Full List: International Organizations the United States Is Directed to Withdraw From
The memorandum orders U.S. withdrawal, cessation of participation, and/or termination of funding from the following bodies.
Non-United Nations Organizations
24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact
Colombo Plan Council
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Education Cannot Wait
European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats
Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories
Freedom Online Coalition
Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund
Global Counterterrorism Forum
Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
Global Forum on Migration and Development
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
International Cotton Advisory Committee
International Development Law Organization
International Energy Forum
International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law
International Lead and Zinc Study Group
International Renewable Energy Agency
International Solar Alliance
International Tropical Timber Organization
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Pan American Institute of Geography and History
Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation
Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia
Regional Cooperation Council
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
Science and Technology Center in Ukraine
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Venice Commission of the Council of Europe
United Nations Bodies and Programs
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – Economic Commission for Africa
ECOSOC – Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
ECOSOC – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
ECOSOC – Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
International Law Commission
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals
International Trade Centre
Office of the Special Adviser on Africa
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children
Peacebuilding Commission
Peacebuilding Fund
Permanent Forum on People of African Descent
UN Alliance of Civilizations
UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)
UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
UN Democracy Fund
UN Energy
UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
UN Oceans
UN Population Fund (UNFPA)
UN Register of Conventional Arms
UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination
UN System Staff College
UN Water
UN University
Seeing the list in full makes the reality unavoidable:
the United States is stepping away not from one institution, but from the architecture itself.
ONEST will continue to track the legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical fallout of this decision, including congressional responses, international reactions, and the long-term impact on U.S. influence within the global system.
Comments