International Organizations are Necessary for the United States

On January 7, 2026, the Trump administration took a historic and unprecedented step in American foreign policy by signing a Presidential Memorandum to withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations. This list includes 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN organizations, ranging from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).

While framed by the administration as a move to protect national sovereignty and eliminate “wasteful” spending, this mass withdrawal represents a fundamental retreat from global leadership that poses severe risks to the rule of international law, the global environment, and the stability of the world economy.

1. Erosion of International Law and Norms

The sudden departure from 66 organizations—many of which were founded with American leadership—weakens the very fabric of the international legal order.

• Undermining Treaties: By withdrawing from the UNFCCC, a Senate-ratified treaty, the administration bypasses established constitutional and international processes. This sets a dangerous precedent that international agreements are disposable based on the whims of a single executive.
• A Vacuum of Leadership: When the U.S. exits these forums, it does not simply “save money”; it forfeits its “seat at the table.” This creates a power vacuum that rival nations, particularly China, are eager to fill. As a result, global standards on everything from human rights to maritime security and cyber expertise will be written without American input, often by actors whose values are diametrically opposed to Western democratic norms.
• Weakening Collective Security: Organizations like the Global Counterterrorism Forum and the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy are vital for maintaining order. Leaving them fragments the global effort to combat crime and terrorism, making the world less predictable and more dangerous.

2. A Fatal Blow to Environmental Protection

The environmental consequences of this withdrawal are perhaps the most immediate and visible. The U.S. is now the only nation on Earth not party to the UNFCCC.

• Scientific Isolation: By exiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. deliberately severs its connection to the world’s most authoritative source of climate science. This “blind flight” policy prevents American policymakers from using shared global data to protect their own citizens from natural disasters.
• Stalling the Green Transition: Withdrawing from the International Solar Alliance and IRENA signals a retreat from the clean energy sector. As the rest of the world moves toward renewables, the U.S. risks becoming a “technological island,” tethered to declining industries while other nations reap the economic and environmental benefits of the green revolution.

3. Destabilizing the Global Economy

The most profound impact, however, may be felt in the global markets and the domestic American economy.

• Investor Uncertainty: International organizations provide the “rules of the road” for global trade and finance. Withdrawal from bodies like the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and various commodity study groups (like Lead, Zinc, and Cotton) creates market volatility. Businesses thrive on stability; sudden isolationism makes the U.S. a less reliable partner for long-term investment.
• Forfeiting Economic Influence: Organizations like the International Development Law Organization help establish commercial laws in emerging markets. Without U.S. participation, American companies may find themselves navigating foreign markets where the legal frameworks are designed to favor their competitors.
• Increased Long-term Costs: As noted by organizations like Oxfam, withdrawing from aid and development bodies (like the Peacebuilding Fund) is “penny wise and pound foolish.” Neglecting global stability leads to more frequent crises, mass migration, and supply chain disruptions, which ultimately cost the global economy far more than the membership dues ever did.

Conclusion

The decision to leave 66 international organizations is more than a budget cut; it is a dismantling of the post-WWII international architecture. By abandoning these institutions, the United States is not just retreating from the world—it is actively undermining the systems that have fostered global prosperity and relative peace for decades. Without a seat at the table, the U.S. loses its ability to shape the future, leaving the environment, the rule of law, and the global economy to face an uncertain and fractured future.