Climate Shock: US Quits Key Treaties

President Trump’s withdrawal from 66 international organizations is a bold move that reasserts American sovereignty and challenges globalist agendas.

Story Highlights

Trump directs a withdrawal from 66 international entities, citing conflicts with U.S. interests.
This includes major climate and scientific bodies like the UNFCCC and IPCC.
The decision follows a comprehensive review initiated by Executive Order 14199.
The move has sparked international backlash, raising concerns about U.S. influence.

Trump’s Decisive Action Against Globalist Entities

On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of U.S. participation and funding from 66 international organizations. This sweeping action targets entities deemed contrary to American interests, including major climate and scientific bodies such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The decision builds upon Executive Order 14199, signed in February 2025, which mandated a thorough review of U.S. involvement in international entities.

The memorandum follows a year-long State Department review led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The review identified organizations characterized as “anti-American, useless, or wasteful,” with many allegedly promoting agendas hostile to U.S. sovereignty and economic prosperity. Rubio emphasized that the withdrawal reflects a commitment to redirecting resources to domestic priorities, echoing the administration’s “America First” approach.

Reactions and Implications

The decision to withdraw from these international bodies has drawn significant international criticism. Civil society, scientific organizations, and foreign governments have warned of severe impacts on climate cooperation, diplomatic relations, and governance. The Union of Concerned Scientists described the withdrawal from the UNFCCC and IPCC as a “new low,” undermining global climate science and U.S. credibility.

Despite the backlash, the White House has framed the move as a necessary step to protect national interests and end taxpayer support for what it calls “globalist agendas.” The withdrawal aims to fortify American sovereignty, reduce perceived global bureaucratic influence, and ensure that funds are allocated to domestic priorities such as infrastructure and border security.

Watch:

Future Challenges and Opportunities

The immediate implementation of the Presidential Memorandum instructs agencies to begin the withdrawal process, although legal exits from treaties or formal memberships can require time and procedural compliance. The potential diplomatic fallout could strain alliances and open avenues for other global powers, such as the EU and China, to fill the void left by the U.S. exit.

Long-term, this move signals a shift in U.S. foreign policy, potentially eroding U.S. influence in setting global rules. However, it also presents an opportunity for the administration to prioritize national interests and engage in bilateral agreements that align more closely with U.S. values and goals.

Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States https://t.co/bhxvHHIloX

— Md Kausar (@MdKausar220960) January 8, 2026