Analysis: What a U.S. exit from 66 global bodies means for global governance

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a memorandum directing his country's withdrawal from 66 international organizations that "no longer serve American interests" – the latest move by the Trump administration to further retreat from global cooperation.

Starting with Trump's "America First" slogan, the statement said they comprised 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN organizations, including the UN Economic and Social Council's panels for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, and Western Asia, and UN Trade and Development and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

According to the list published on the White House website, most of the targets are UN-related agencies, commissions and advisory panels that focus on climate change, global governance, labor and other issues that the Trump administration has categorized as promoting diversity and a "woke" agenda.

With the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from organizations that promote international cooperation and address global challenges, its series of military actions and threatening rhetoric has caused unease among allies and adversaries, including the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and signals of an intention to take over Greenland.

'No longer serving American interests'

The withdrawal from the UNFCCC marks another significant step by the Trump administration in pushing the U.S. away from international climate cooperation. The  U.S. is the first country to withdraw from the organization.

Adopted in 1992 by 198 parties, the UNFCCC provides the legal foundation for international cooperation on climate action, including financial support for developing countries. It also underpins the landmark Paris Agreement. Trump – who calls climate change a "hoax" – withdrew from that agreement shortly after returning to the White House.

Former White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy called the move "shortsighted, embarrassing, and a foolish decision."

"As the only country in the world not a part of the UNFCCC treaty, the Trump administration is throwing away decades of U.S. climate change leadership and global collaboration," McCarthy said in a statement. "This Administration is forfeiting our country's ability to influence trillions of dollars in investments, policies, and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country."

The U.S. withdrawal could hinder global efforts to curb greenhouse gases because it "gives other nations the excuse to delay their own actions and commitments," said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries' carbon dioxide emissions.

Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an international nonprofit environmental organization, said this is an "unnecessary mistake" and a "self-destructive move" that will further weaken U.S. competitiveness.

It will also be difficult to achieve meaningful progress on climate change without cooperation from the U.S., one of the world's largest emitters and economies, experts said.

Other organizations and agencies that the U.S. will quit include the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the UN University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.

Responding to the U.S. move, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said the value of international organizations and multilateral mechanisms lies in upholding shared interests, not national self-interest. The UN-centered international system has helped maintain global peace and stability, promote economic and social development, and safeguard equal rights among countries for more than 80 years, spokesperson Mao Ning said at a news conference.

'My way or the highway'

Some analysts point out that Trump's withdrawal from international organizations is a concentrated manifestation of his "America First" policy. The underlying motivations include economic considerations, an attempt to cater to domestic populism, and an effort to reshape the path of U.S. hegemony.

Since beginning his second term a year ago, Trump has sought to cut U.S. funding for UN agencies. These moves include withdrawing from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement, ending engagement with the UN Human Rights Council, continuing to suspend funding for the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA, and pulling out of the UN cultural agency, UNESCO.

These international organizations serve as key coordination mechanisms for addressing global challenges such as climate change, cultural heritage protection, and humanitarian assistance for refugees.

More broadly, the U.S. has adopted a selective, à la carte approach to its financial contributions to the UN, funding only those agencies and operations it deems aligned with the Trump administration's agenda, while scaling back or cutting support for others considered inconsistent with U.S. interests.

As one of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters, the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement has also drawn widespread criticism from the international community. Analysts warn that the move could undermine global efforts to reduce emissions, weaken other countries' incentives to honor their climate commitments, increase uncertainty in climate governance, and disrupt the global energy transition.

The international community has taken a critical view of Trump's unilateralism, arguing that it reduces resources available to international organizations, weakens governance capacity, and undermines the stability of global governance.

Critics say such actions leave weaker countries' security and interests inadequately protected, fall short of the responsibilities expected of a major country, and risk further isolating the United States while eroding its international image.

"I think what we're seeing is the crystallization of the U.S. approach to multilateralism, which is 'my way or the highway,'" said Daniel Forti, head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group. "It's a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington's own terms."

It has marked a significant shift from how previous administrations – both Republican and Democratic – have dealt with the UN, and it has forced the UN, which is already undergoing its own internal reckoning, to respond with a series of staffing and program cuts.

Mao said the current global situation once again shows that only the effective functioning of multilateral systems can prevent the spread of the law of the jungle and stop international order from being dominated by power politics and the use of force, which she said is particularly vital for small and developing countries.