The US's Massive Withdrawal from International Organizations: A Severe Challenge to the Global Governance System

On January 7, 2026, US President Trump signed a presidential memorandum, formally initiating the process of withdrawing the US from 66 international organizations. This move is seen as a further escalation of US unilateralism, triggering deep concerns in the international community about the prospects for global cooperation. According to a White House statement, the organizations withdrawing include 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN agencies, covering key areas such as climate change, public health, trade and development, and human rights protection. The White House claims these organizations are "inefficient and contrary to US interests," while critics point out that this move could weaken the US's international influence and cause a systemic shock to the global governance system.

I. Scale of Withdrawal and Key Institutions: Targeted Weakening of Multilateral Cooperation

This withdrawal is the largest unilateral diplomatic move by the Trump administration to date. The institutions included on the list are core organizations such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Population Fund, and UN Women. Climate and environment have become key targets for withdrawal, affecting approximately 20 related institutions, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Renewable Energy Agency. The United States thus became the first country to withdraw from the U.S. Federal Federal Council (UNFCCC), a move criticized as a "direct blow to global climate cooperation."

Simultaneously, withdrawing from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women will directly impact global maternal and child health and gender equality projects. The former conducts family planning and maternal and child health work in more than 150 countries, while the latter is dedicated to promoting women's empowerment. The White House memo explicitly requires "terminating funding and ceasing participation," and the operations of these institutions may be hampered by the U.S. withdrawal.

II. Historical Context and Policy Inertia: The Continuation and Escalation of "America First"

The Trump administration's withdrawal from international agreements is not an isolated incident, but rather a deepening of its unilateralism during its first term. From 2017 to 2020, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and UNESCO, among others; upon returning to the White House in 2025, Trump swiftly withdrew again from the WHO and the Paris Agreement. This action is based on the "International Organization Review Program" launched in February 2025, after which the U.S. State Department assessed multilateral mechanisms and determined that these 66 organizations were "redundant or jeopardizing sovereignty."

In his statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that these institutions are "manipulated by forces contrary to US interests" or "advancing an awakening agenda." However, the US retains participation rights in some organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Maritime Organization, indicating that its strategy is not a complete withdrawal from the multilateral system, but rather a selective retention of institutions "favorable to competition," particularly focusing on areas of competition with China.

III. Motive Analysis: Dual Driven by Domestic Politics and Hegemonic Logic

From a domestic political perspective, this move aims to appeal to conservative voters and accumulate leverage for the 2026 midterm elections. Currently, the US economy faces high unemployment and inflationary pressures. Trump is using withdrawals to save money and cultivate an image as a "defender of sovereignty" to divert attention from domestic problems. Economically, the US is attempting to redirect resources to domestic industries, for example, using the funds saved from withdrawals for military expansion (the 2027 budget is proposed to reach $1.5 trillion).

At the international strategic level, the US is shifting from "rules-based" to "military deterrence." Withdrawing from binding mechanisms clears the way for unilateral actions (such as intervention in Venezuela and threats to Greenland), essentially embodying "Don Rothschildism"—a move to evade international law and consolidate control over the Western Hemisphere.

IV. Potential Impacts: Disorder in Global Governance and US Self-Isolation

1. Damaged Global Public Goods Supply

The US is the largest contributor to the UN system (28% of the UN budget in 2023). Its withdrawal will lead to reductions in projects related to public health and climate response. For example, the WHO's pandemic control capabilities may weaken without US funding; UNESCO's World Heritage conservation and education programs will also be impacted.

2. Severe Damage to Climate Change Cooperation

As a major global carbon emitter, the US withdrawal from the UNFCCC could weaken the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement. Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson points out that this move will provide other countries with an excuse to "delay emissions reductions," hindering the achievement of global temperature control goals.

3. Damaged US International Credibility and Long-Term Interests

The Los Angeles Times analysis suggests that the US's voluntary relinquishment of global rule-making power may marginalize it in competition for green industries and technological standards. Furthermore, unilateral actions have exacerbated the international community's crisis of trust in the US, leading to estrangement between capital and allies.

4. The Multilateral System Faces Pressure to Restructuring

Brazilian scholar Evandro Carvalho points out that the US's behavior is like a "reckless bull," undermining the rules-based international order. However, the power vacuum may be filled by other major powers, pushing global governance towards multipolarity.

V. International Reactions and Future Directions

The international community has generally criticized the US's actions. An anonymous UN official stated that the organizations Trump withdrew from "mostly involve development, women, and climate issues," precisely areas explicitly neglected by the US government; the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded that the multilateral system is "the cornerstone of preventing the spread of the law of the jungle," and China will continue to support the UN's core role; European think tanks worry that the US withdrawal could trigger a ripple effect, exacerbating the fragmentation of global governance.

The US State Department stated that its review of international organizations "continues," and further withdrawals are possible in the future. However, history shows that unilateralism cannot reverse the trend of globalization. As Foreign Affairs warned, the United States, facing an extremely divided domestic situation, should have sought multilateral balance, but instead chose a path of "naked hegemony," the long-term costs of which may far outweigh the short-term gains.

Conclusion

While the US's mass withdrawal from international organizations may alleviate fiscal pressure and appease some public opinion in the short term, its destructive impact on global cooperation mechanisms and the decline of US international leadership will become key variables in the future evolution of the international order. Against the backdrop of increasingly urgent transnational challenges such as climate change and public health, maintaining multilateral frameworks remains the shared responsibility of the international community.