President Trump's executive order to withdraw the United States from 66 international organizations, agencies and commissions is reverberating across the globe. Many people who work in the international arena are parsing the order and working to understand the implications and impact.
"This is a ridiculous and dangerous, thoughtless and malicious action," says Nina Schwalbe, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Policy and Politics, who has been a critic of the Trump administration's cuts to global health.
"He withdrew from the World Health Organization [almost a year ago], which was the first sign of his withdrawal from multilateralism. He cut down a tree. Now he's cutting down the whole forest," she says. "The implications are going to go so far and wide — from children's education to climate change to art and culture. He's just taken a bazooka and blown the whole thing apart."
Others had the opposite take. Brett Schaefer, a U.N. expert at the American Enterprise Institute, would have liked to see the U.S. withdraw from more organizations — and more significant organizations. "I see it as a missed opportunity," he says.
Recalling Trump's promise to reassess how the U.S. engages with international organizations, Schaefer says, "This is, in my opinion, pruning around the margins. The largest recipients of U.S. funding in the U.N. system are largely unaddressed by this executive order."
He said the number 66 is impressive but many of the specific organizations are "very small and obscure." He added: "I was underwhelmed."
A statement from the U.N. said the secretary-general "regrets" the White House announcement and adds: "As we have consistently underscored, assessed contributions to the United Nations regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the U.N. Charter for all Member States, including the United States."
Here are the details of this announcement — and the potential ramifications.
What's in the executive order?
The order, signed by Trump on Wednesday, says the organizations he's withdrawing from "undermine America's independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas."
Of the 66 organizations named in the executive order, 31 are United Nations entities. Some are higher profile, like U.N. Women; the U.N. Population Fund, which addresses sexual and reproductive health; and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others are less well known, like the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children.
The withdrawal list did not include some of the U.N.'s major agencies — like the United Nations Children's Fund or UNICEF.
Rubio's rationale — and a rebuttal
Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the decisions as not only saving American taxpayer dollars but also what he characterized as a meaningless expenditure of energy in international forums.
"It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it," Rubio said in a statement, adding that the organizations were "mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful and poorly run." He echoed Trump's statement that the organizations' interests run "contrary" to U.S. interests.
This took Payal Shah aback. "We really have to ask ourselves: What are we saying our country stands for? If we're saying that these institutions — that are aimed at promoting equality and protecting vulnerable populations — are contrary to our interests," says Shah, director of research and legal work at Physicians for Human Rights.
Schwalbe worries about another consequence of the U.S. stepping back from many international organizations: "[It] leaves a door wide open for Chinese dominance of the U.N. system and processes."
A blow to climate concerns
While not unexpected, one significant withdrawal is the U.S. pulling out of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. For the past three decades, UNFCCC has served as the legal basis for global efforts to limit heat-trapping emissions. The treaty requires wealthy countries to report regularly on their climate change policies and submit an annual inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.
The UNFCCC was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992 under former President George H.W. Bush. Critics say that by withdrawing, the U.S. is forfeiting its ability to shape global climate initiatives. The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that "once the withdrawal takes effect one year from signing, the United States will be the only country not engaged in the UNFCCC."
The move is the latest effort to remove the U.S. from global climate efforts. For example, Trump refused to send a delegation to U.N. climate negotiations last year in Brazil. And the president already pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, which set a goal to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, notes the U.S. could rejoin the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement under a future administration.
Does this mean the U.S. is done with the United Nations?
This week's announcement did not come as a surprise to many.
"This is something that we, who follow the U.N., have been expecting in some shape or form pretty much for the past couple of months," says Daniel Forti, head of U.N. affairs at the International Crisis Group.
The move is the latest in a number of steps the Trump administration has taken to distance the U.S. from multilateral organizations — groups where many countries collaborate to address global problems.
"There's a perception [in the administration] that many of these international organizations were dominated by a progressive ideology — particularly focused on gender equality, environmental matters, climate change," says Thomas Bollyky, director of the Global Health program at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And this is an effort to remove the U.S. from those venues. But there's very little we get in exchange for having done so, certainly not much financial savings, and not much savings in terms of resources."
Forti and others agree that the U.S. is not pulling away from the U.N. entirely. The administration continues to participate in the U.N. Security Council and is a donor to UNICEF and the World Food Programme.
And AEI's Schaefer points out that the U.S. has announced funding for several multilateral organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Bollyky notes that the U.S. does want to address issues on the agendas of groups on the withdrawal list — counterterrorism, energy, child trafficking and health — but outside the international system.
The Trump administration is emphasizing bilateral agreements — worked out directly between the U.S. and one other country — as its new strategy for such issues. But Bollyky cautions that there are limitations: After months of negotiations, the administration has so far only reached deals with nine African countries in the health care space alone. He says that multilateral groups already have buy-in from many countries — even ones that the U.S. is not friendly with.
The withdrawal "will have everyday effects on Americans because it's difficult to make progress on health, climate, environmental or counterterrorism challenges that, by their very nature, span borders," he says.
What are the consequences?
Beth Schlachter says the withdrawals will have impacts on the ground. She works for the global charity MSI Reproductive Choices, which aims to improve access to reproductive services in 36 countries. The U.S. had previously halted funding for the U.N. Population Fund before this week's formal withdrawal — with "profound' impacts.
"There's been clinics shut, doctors pushed out of work, nurses and community health workers no longer available. [Medical] supplies aren't on shelves anymore," she says. "We're seeing pregnant women who are now transmitting HIV to their unborn children or fetuses. It's been catastrophic."
She says withdrawing entirely from the agency will further undermine its legitimacy. "In a gratuitous way [it] continues to take a bite at the integrity of the U.N. itself," says Schlachter.
A representative of the U.N. Population Fund told NPR it was not notified about the withdrawal by the U.S. and would not be able to comment.
Even as the U.S. continues to participate in many international organizations, Forti says these withdrawals send a clear message to other countries: "The symbolism is unequivocal. It's that the U.S. really wants to dictate its own terms to the rest of the multilateral system and wants to work with the U.N. in a way where it really sets the agenda."
Copyright 2026 NPR
