The United States will exit 66 international collaborations, including major United Nations climate and ocean bodies, under a directive announced by President Donald Trump on Jan. 7. The move affects treaties, conventions, and organisations across climate change, maritime issues, energy, security, and gender equality, and marks a sharp break from earlier US engagement.
The White House said the withdrawals “will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions,” Reuters reported. Business and policy groups warned of long-term costs.
US withdrawal from international groups and climate change bodies
The administration’s instruction follows a review ordered by Trump and carried out by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio examined every international organisation, treaty, and convention involving the United States. The resulting list covers 66 arrangements, of which 31 are linked to the United Nations system and described as “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
| Category | Number affected |
|---|---|
| Total groups, treaties, conventions | 66 |
| Associated with the United Nations | 31 |
Among the targeted entities are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Other affected forums cover renewable energy collaboration, oceans governance, maritime piracy, counterterrorism efforts, and initiatives aimed at empowerment of women, signalling a broad reset of how the United States participates in multilateral work.
US withdrawal from international groups and climate change treaties
The Framework Convention on Climate Change holds particular symbolic weight. The convention was signed by former President George H. W. Bush and ratified by the US Senate in October 1992. At that time, Bush described it as the “first step in crucial long-term international efforts to address climate change.” The agreement requires national greenhouse gas inventories and climate programmes.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, once this withdrawal is complete, the United States will stand alone as the only country not party to the framework. The organisation noted that, while Washington had already notified its intent to leave the Paris climate agreement for a second time, it had never before stepped away from the underlying convention.
US withdrawal from international groups and climate change research
The decision builds on earlier climate actions by the Trump administration in 2025. That year, officials instructed federal employees not to take part in preparing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next major assessment report. The IPCC is widely regarded by scientists and governments as the leading international body assessing climate change knowledge.
Corporate leaders and analysts expressed concern that the shift would erode US influence and competitiveness. Pulling out of the framework convention on climate is “a strategic blunder that gives away American advantage for nothing in return,” said David Widawsky, director of WRI US, the World Resources Institute in the United States. “Walking away doesn’t just put America on the sidelines — it takes the U.S. out of the arena entirely,” Widawski added.
Widawsky argued that companies and communities in the United States will lose ground while other nations deepen low-carbon investment. According to Widawsky, rivals are already moving to capture the “booming clean-energy economy.” Critics say reduced engagement will make it harder for American firms to shape standards or compete for emerging climate-related contracts.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists climate and energy programme, described the decision starkly. The withdrawal from the global climate treaty is “a new low” from the administration, said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists climate and energy program. It’s another “sign that this authoritarian, anti-science administration is determined to sacrifice people’s well-being and destabilize global cooperation,” she added.
According to Cleetus, the move will deepen diplomatic strains and create additional security risks. Cleetus warned that the withdrawal will serve to further “isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting,” and could damage relations with longstanding allies while making the world less safe.
The timing coincides with new global temperature analyses for 2025. Major scientific organisations expect 2025 to rank as the second or third warmest year recorded worldwide. Climate specialists say that, as warming trends continue, coordinated international responses on emissions, adaptation, and ocean management become more urgent rather than less.
The recent announcement fits a wider pattern in Trump-era foreign policy. Since Trump’s inauguration nearly a year earlier, the administration has pursued cuts to United Nations funding and stepped back from cooperation with the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, Reuters reported. Officials have also previously set out plans for the United States to leave the World Health Organization.
For business professionals watching international rules and risks, the United States retreat from 66 arrangements raises questions about future standards, alliances, and market access. Climate, security, health, and ocean governance will continue through other coalitions, while the United States recalibrates its role and weighs domestic priorities against long-established multilateral commitments.
