In a major policy move with global ramifications, the United States government announced on January 7, 2026, that it would withdraw from a wide array of international organizations, including several that are central to global climate change policy and environmental cooperation. The decision, unveiled through a presidential memorandum signed by President Donald J. Trump, marks a dramatic shift in American foreign policy and climate engagement. It removes the U.S. from more than 60 international bodies, among them the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The UNFCCC, which has served as the foundation for nearly all international climate agreements since its adoption in 1992, is widely viewed as the cornerstone of global efforts to coordinate responses to climate change. The Paris Agreement, signed under the auspices of the UNFCCC, committed nations to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The U.S. previously withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2025, but this latest decision goes further by pulling the country out of the treaty framework itself, which has underpinned climate diplomacy for more than three decades.
In parallel, the U.S. will also exit the IPCC, the leading international body for the scientific assessment of climate change. Comprised of scientists from around the world, including many from the United States, the IPCC has issued comprehensive reports that have shaped climate policies, informed global negotiations, and guided international consensus on the science behind global warming. By stepping away from this organization, the U.S. diminishes its formal participation in shaping scientific dialogue at the highest levels of global policymaking.
According to the White House, the move is intended to realign American foreign engagement with what the administration describes as its core national interests. A fact sheet released alongside the presidential memorandum states that the targeted organizations promote agendas that are “inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty, economic priorities, and strategic goals.” The administration argues that continued membership in such bodies requires financial commitments and policy constraints that do not serve the interests of the American people.
Supporters of the withdrawal argue that it marks a return to a more independent and self-directed approach to international relations. They claim that the U.S. should not be subject to global institutions that may impose constraints on domestic industries, particularly in the energy and manufacturing sectors. They also view the redirection of funds from international bodies toward domestic programs as a sound fiscal decision.
However, the decision has generated intense criticism from environmental organizations, scientific communities, foreign policy experts, and international allies. Many warn that the withdrawal will severely hamper coordinated global efforts to tackle the escalating climate crisis. Critics contend that no single nation can effectively combat climate change in isolation and that the absence of the United States—one of the world’s largest historical emitters of greenhouse gases—weakens the overall effectiveness of multilateral climate efforts.
Environmental scientists have voiced concern that without U.S. input, future IPCC reports may lack the depth of expertise that American researchers traditionally contribute. Furthermore, climate advocates argue that retreating from these organizations undermines U.S. leadership in shaping environmental standards and forfeits influence to other countries, including China and the European Union, who may now fill the diplomatic void.
The legal basis for the withdrawal has also been called into question by some constitutional scholars. They note that the UNFCCC was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, and argue that its formal withdrawal should require Senate involvement. However, past precedent has seen presidents withdraw from international treaties without congressional approval, and the issue remains legally unresolved. It is likely that challenges may arise, but any definitive judicial ruling on the limits of executive authority in treaty withdrawal is still pending.
International reaction has been swift and largely negative. United Nations officials, European leaders, and environmental advocacy groups have expressed disappointment, noting that global cooperation is more urgent than ever in the face of rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. Some have suggested that the move reflects a broader trend toward isolationism in U.S. foreign policy, while others worry it may embolden other countries to weaken their own climate commitments.
Despite the federal government’s decision, several U.S. states and municipalities have reaffirmed their commitment to global climate action. California, New York, and a coalition of over a dozen other states have pledged to maintain climate targets in line with the Paris Agreement and continue collaborating with international partners. Major corporations and industry groups in the renewable energy sector have also spoken out in favor of sustained engagement, citing economic and innovation opportunities tied to global environmental leadership.
As the process of formally exiting these organizations begins—a process that will take effect over the course of the coming year—the long-term implications for U.S. environmental policy and international diplomacy remain uncertain. What is clear is that the decision signals a fundamental shift in how the United States views its role in addressing one of the defining global challenges of the 21st century.
