US President Donald Trump (Flickr)
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from dozens of international organisations, conventions and treaties — including the world’s primary global treaty for coordinating international responses to climate change — has drawn sharp criticism from scientists, policy experts and civil society leaders worldwide.
In a presidential memorandum issued on 7 January, Trump directed the withdrawal of the US from 66 international organisations that the White House said “no longer serve American interests”.
The memorandum outlined the US’s intention to once again withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the cornerstone global treaty to combat climate change, which has been signed by 197 countries.
It also ordered the US to exit major science and conservation bodies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), describing them as “contrary to the interests of the United States”.
Once the withdrawal from the UNFCCC takes effect one year after signing, the US will be the only country in the world not participating in the treaty.
According to the White House, the memorandum instructs all executive departments and agencies to cease participation in and funding for 35 United Nations organisations and 31 UN-affiliated entities deemed to operate against US national interests, security, economic prosperity or sovereignty.
“These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively,” the White House statement said.
The US was instrumental in creating both the convention and the Paris Agreement “because they are entirely in its national interest”, noted Simon Stiell, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC.
“While all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate cooperation and science can only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards,” Stiell said in a statement. “It is a colossal own goal that will leave the United States less secure and less prosperous.”
Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the move as “a new low”, accusing the Trump administration of sacrificing public wellbeing and undermining global cooperation.
“Collective global action remains the only viable path to securing a livable future,” Cleetus said, warning that withdrawal would further isolate the US, erode its international credibility and expose Americans to greater climate-related health, economic and environmental risks.
The US withdrawal from the UNFCCC was a strategic blunder, said David Widawsky, the director of the World Resources Institute’s US programme.
“The 30-year-old agreement is the foundation of international climate cooperation,” he said in a statement. “Walking away doesn’t just put America on the sidelines — it takes the US out of the arena entirely.”
Mohamed Adow, the founder and director of Power Shift Africa, condemned what he called an “ignorant and reckless” move which undermined global solidarity as climate impacts intensified.
“Political posturing cannot change the physics of greenhouse gas accumulation,” Adow added. “No amount of rhetoric can extinguish wildfires, stop floods or hold back hurricanes.”
He warned that the decision would also harm Americans themselves as climate disasters escalate and the global economy pivots toward clean energy.
“The rest of the world will move forward with or without American leadership,” he said. “But ordinary Americans, like people everywhere, deserve better than a government that turns its back on both science and their future security.”
IPBES chairperson David Obura also expressed deep regret at Washington’s intention to withdraw.
The US is a founding member of IPBES, which was established in 2012 and has played a central role in its work. US scientists, policymakers and Indigenous knowledge holders have contributed extensively to IPBES assessments, negotiations and governance, while US decision-makers have been among the platform’s most active users.
“While it is clearly the prerogative of governments to withdraw from global processes, this does not change the science, or the relevance of that science to people’s lives and livelihoods everywhere,” Obura said.
He pointed to IPBES findings showing that more than one million species face extinction, that environmental damage is costing the global economy up to $25 trillion a year and that failure to act is forfeiting trillions of dollars in economic opportunities and hundreds of millions of potential jobs.
The US has not yet formally notified IPBES of its withdrawal but the platform expects US membership to end soon.
Other bodies affected include forums and offices dealing with oceans, migration, cyber expertise, trade, international law, counterterrorism and the protection of children and civilians in conflict zones.
The White House said many of the affected institutions promote “radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programmes” that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength.
Despite the US retreat, climate leaders stressed that global cooperation would continue.
“When countries work together on climate, it saves lives, creates jobs, strengthens economic stability and builds a more prosperous future,” Widawsky said.