Trump Orders US Withdrawal from 66 Global Bodies, Including UN Climate Convention

In a sweeping directive, the White House has ordered the United States to pull out of 66 international organisations and treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The move marks a dramatic redrawing of US engagement with global climate diplomacy and science.

What the order does

The decision removes the United States—historically the largest contributor to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions—from the central architecture that has guided global climate action for more than three decades. By stepping away from the UNFCCC, the US would exit the process that underpins collective efforts on emissions reductions, adaptation planning, and transparency. Leaving the IPCC severs formal ties to the world’s principal authority on climate science assessments.

The directive also signals a retreat from coordinated climate finance and technical assistance, which have helped developing nations build resilience and transition toward cleaner energy systems. Without US participation, those funding streams and capacity-building initiatives could face increased uncertainty.

Why it matters

Climate scientists and policy analysts warn the decision could weaken international cooperation at a time when climate impacts—from extreme heat to intensifying storms and drought—are accelerating. They argue that sidelining established science and multilateral processes risks undermining public health, economic stability, and US credibility abroad. The United States has long exerted outsized influence in setting climate rules, standards, and market signals; disengagement may leave a vacuum that other powers will move to fill.

Economic stakes for the US

Analysts caution that withdrawing from the UNFCCC framework could put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage as global markets increasingly pivot toward low-carbon technologies. Many countries are expanding investments in renewables, grid modernization, electric mobility, and clean manufacturing. As international norms tighten around emissions and disclosure, US companies operating overseas may face growing compliance hurdles without the diplomatic leverage and policy coordination historically provided by Washington’s participation in climate forums.

Communities at home could also feel the effects. Federal disengagement complicates access to international partnerships that have supported resilience planning, disaster risk reduction, and technology transfer—tools that help reduce costs and protect livelihoods as climate risks intensify.

Global climate efforts will proceed

Even as the US steps back, other nations are expected to continue working through the UN climate process to reduce emissions and enhance adaptation. The UNFCCC remains the primary venue for negotiating emissions targets, transparency mechanisms, and cooperation on finance and technology. Many governments have reiterated commitments to collective action, suggesting that multilateral climate diplomacy will continue, albeit without US leadership.

Emissions context

China currently emits the largest share of global carbon dioxide annually, followed by the United States, India, Russia, and Japan. On a per-person basis, however, the US remains among the highest emitters, with average emissions roughly double China’s and many times those of India. Given the country’s historical contribution and economic weight, a US retreat from climate cooperation complicates the global math: meeting temperature goals becomes harder without sustained action from one of the world’s largest economies and energy producers.

A break with precedent

This directive follows another recent US step back from the Paris Agreement, an accord nested within the UNFCCC framework. While the US has previously withdrawn and re-entered Paris, a full exit from the UNFCCC would be unprecedented. The convention has, for more than 30 years, been supported by administrations across the US political spectrum. Leaving it would represent a fundamental shift in how the country engages with climate science, policy, and diplomacy.

What comes next

The timeline and legal mechanics of exiting international bodies vary and may involve consultation with Congress or face legal challenges. Meanwhile, global partners are likely to reassess their strategies, strengthen regional alliances, and adjust trade and investment plans to reflect the new reality. For the United States, the decision raises a pivotal question: how to safeguard communities, industries, and ecosystems from escalating climate risks while stepping away from the main platforms designed to manage them collectively.