The White House moves to withdraw the United States from selected international organizations and UN entities

The question of whether withdrawal from international organizations strengthens or weakens a state’s actual sovereignty is far from settled. On January 7, 2026, the White House published a Presidential Memorandum directing U.S. executive departments and agencies to take “immediate steps” to withdraw the United States from a set of international bodies that, in the Administration’s view, no longer align with U.S. interests.

The Memorandum places the decision inside a review process launched by Executive Order 14199 (February 4, 2025). That earlier order instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, to examine U.S. participation and support across international intergovernmental organizations, and also U.S. membership in conventions and treaties, with the aim of identifying those considered “contrary to the interests of the United States.” The January 7 document states that the Secretary of State reported findings and that the President, after consultation with the Cabinet, decided to proceed with withdrawals from the listed organizations.

In operational terms, the Memorandum draws a distinction between non-UN organizations and UN entities. For UN bodies, it defines “withdrawal” as ceasing participation or funding “to the extent permitted by law.” It also indicates that further review remains ongoing, and that the Secretary of State may issue additional implementation guidance to agencies.

The list attached to the Memorandum includes 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN entities (66 in total). Among the non-UN organizations, the text names bodies and initiatives spanning climate and energy cooperation (including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Renewable Energy Agency, and the International Solar Alliance), digital and security-related forums (including the Freedom Online Coalition and the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise), and governance or rule-of-law oriented institutions (including the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe).

On the UN side, the Memorandum identifies a broad set of entities, including the International Law Commission, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Women, the UN Population Fund, and the UN University, among others. In other words, the scope is not limited to one policy area, but touches climate, development, gender equality, training and research, and parts of the UN system’s institutional ecosystem.

A same-day White House fact sheet frames the decision as a sovereignty-and-resourcing choice. It describes the withdrawals as ending U.S. funding and involvement in bodies deemed ineffective, misaligned with U.S. priorities, or supportive of agendas the Administration opposes, while presenting the move as a reallocation of attention and resources toward “America First” priorities. Whether selective disengagement from multilateral bodies actually produces the strategic advantage the Administration claims—or instead accelerates the very fragmentation it seeks to insulate against—is a question that international lawyers will be debating for years.