White House Leaving 66 Organisations: Which Groups Are on the List — and What the US Loses by Exiting

The Trump administration has confirmed that the United States will withdraw from 66 international organisations, a move that represents one of the most extensive reductions in American participation in multilateral institutions in decades.

The decision, announced in early January 2026, affects a broad range of bodies spanning climate policy, development, human rights and security cooperation. White House officials said the review was intended to reassess whether US involvement in global organisations continues to serve national interests, signalling a recalibration of foreign policy priorities.

The announcement has prompted debate among allies and diplomats, with supporters arguing the move will reduce costs and limit international influence over domestic policy, while critics warn it could weaken cooperation on shared global challenges and diminish US influence abroad.

Which Organisations Are on the List?

According to administration officials, the United States will exit 31 bodies linked to the United Nations and a further 35 organisations operating outside the UN system. The organisations span areas where the US has historically played a central role, particularly in climate governance and development policy.

Among the UN-affiliated bodies affected are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees international climate negotiations, the UN Population Fund, and UN Women. The administration is also ending participation in the UN Human Settlements Programme and the Peacebuilding Fund, which support urban development and post-conflict stabilisation.

Outside the UN, the withdrawals include climate and energy-focused institutions such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Renewable Energy Agency, alongside forums dealing with migration, cyber policy and counterterrorism cooperation.

Why the White House is Exiting

White House officials have framed the exits as part of a broader effort to streamline international engagement. They argue that some organisations promote policies at odds with US priorities, overlap with other initiatives, or impose financial and regulatory burdens without delivering clear benefits.

Supporters of the policy say withdrawing from multilateral forums allows the government to redirect funding towards domestic programmes and pursue bilateral partnerships more selectively. They also contend that stepping back from global bodies reinforces national sovereignty.

Concerns from Allies and Critics

Diplomatic partners and critics have expressed concern about the potential consequences of the US absence from key institutions. Some have warned that withdrawing from climate and development bodies could complicate coordinated responses to global issues and reduce opportunities for scientific collaboration and data sharing.

Others point to the loss of influence that comes with disengagement. Participation in multilateral organisations often allows countries to shape standards, norms and long-term policy direction, influence that critics argue will now pass to other major powers.

What Happens Next

The decision marks one of the most significant shifts in US multilateral engagement in recent years. While the administration describes the move as a strategic realignment, it comes at a time when international cooperation remains central to addressing challenges such as climate change, migration and security threats.

As the withdrawals take effect, attention is likely to turn to how the United States seeks to advance its interests outside these forums, and how remaining member states adapt to the departure of one of the world's most influential participants.