Publicado el25/03/2026.
United States withdraws from 66 international organizations: analysis of the impact
On January 7, 2026, the United States announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations, including 31 entities within the United Nations system, marking a new stage in its disengagement from multilateral cooperation initiated in 2025. This decision directly affects the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in the areas of climate, gender equality, global health, and development financing. Analysis.
The presidential decree published on January 7 establishes:
- the cessation of U.S. participation in 66 multilateral entities,
- the end of voluntary financial contributions,
- the termination of any commitment deemed contrary to U.S. “national interests.”
Organizations affected by the 2026 withdrawal
Among the 31 United Nations–related entities targeted by the January 7, 2026 announcement are:
- the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundational framework for international climate negotiations since 1992,
- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific authority on climate change,
- UN Women, the UN agency responsible for promoting gender equality and coordinating policies related to the rights of women and girls,
- the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the main multilateral organization working on sexual and reproductive health, maternal health, and the prevention of gender-based violence,
- Education Cannot Wait, the global fund for education in emergencies hosted by the United Nations,
- the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
- as well as several departments and offices of the UN Secretariat, particularly in the areas of trade, development, protection, and inter-agency coordination.
The 35 non-UN organizations affected are mostly technical or sectoral bodies. However, their withdrawal contributes to a cumulative effect on international coordination capacities that support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
A disengagement initiated in 2025
The January 2026 announcement is part of a broader sequence that began on January 20, 2025, with the arrival of the Trump administration, marked by a series of decisions directly affecting development financing and multilateral cooperation:
- Withdrawal or suspension of U.S. participation in major multilateral institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
- Termination of participation in certain human rights–related bodies, including the Human Rights Council,
- Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change,
- Massive reduction in international aid and suspension of numerous bilateral and multilateral financial commitments,
- Closure of USAID, the main U.S. agency for development assistance,
- Reintroduction of the «Global Gag Rule«, which restricts U.S. funding to organizations involved in abortion access and sexual and reproductive health services.
Beyond institutional withdrawals, the U.S. administration has also signaled its rejection of the UN 2030 Agenda, the global framework adopted in 2015 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
U.S. international financing and aid: cascading effects
The budget cuts initiated in 2025 and the closure of USAID have produced both immediate and long-term effects:
- Interruption of numerous voluntary contributions to UN agencies, which represented a significant share of their resources,
- Reduction or termination of thousands of humanitarian, health, education, and climate programs,
- Weakening of the operational capacity of several agencies on the ground, forcing them to scale back activities, staff, or geographic presence,
- Sudden loss of funding for many NGOs and developing countries, and long-term disruption of intervention chains in low- and middle-income countries,
- Significant impact on data collection, disruption of research programs, and reduced access to treatments.
These developments have an even greater impact on the multilateral system given that the United States is the largest provider of official development assistance (ODA) (30% of total ODA, or about $65 billion in 2024), creating a ripple effect on other donors.
According to a study published in The Lancet, more than 22 million people, including 5.4 million children, could die from preventable causes by 2030 due to cuts in international aid from the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Cuts in USAID health programs alone could lead to 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five.
Climate: a weakening of the multilateral architecture
The withdrawal announced in 2026 from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) directly affects the architecture of international climate governance. The UNFCCC has served since 1992 as the central legal framework for climate negotiations, organizing the annual climate conferences (COPs), while IPCC reports provide the authoritative scientific synthesis used by states to define their climate pathways and guide multilateral discussions.
This withdrawal comes in a context where climate cooperation largely depends on collective mechanisms for knowledge production, political coordination, and financing. The absence of a major actor weakens the multilateral system’s ability to structure and deliver coordinated responses to climate change. It also alters the political balance of climate conferences and sets a precedent that could encourage other states to adopt a selective approach toward multilateral climate frameworks.
UN Women and UNFPA: the assertion of an ideological stance on women’s rights and health
The U.S. withdrawal from UN Women and the UNFPA is part of a broader orientation of U.S. policy toward multilateral frameworks related to women’s rights and sexual and reproductive health.
Regarding the UNFPA, all funding had already been suspended as of 2025, representing a total estimated amount of approximately $377 million. In 2024, the United States was the organization’s largest contributor, providing $286 million. These funds primarily supported humanitarian interventions in more than twenty-five countries and territories in crisis settings, where UNFPA plays a central role in providing access to maternal healthcare, contraception, prevention of gender-based violence, and care for women and girls in vulnerable situations.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, this funding enabled an average of 130,390 women per day to access contraceptive services—meaning that approximately 11.7 million women and girls were denied access to contraception in 2025. This led to 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and around 8,340 deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth complications over the course of a year.
The withdrawal from UN Women also affects the coordination of gender equality policies within the UN system and the monitoring of international commitments on the rights of women and girls, which are central to several Sustainable Development Goals. The United States is the 8th largest donor to UN Women, contributing $27.39 million in 2024, or 4.6% of the organization’s budget. In addition, the United States has repeatedly opposed multilateral resolutions referencing sexual and reproductive rights, both at the United Nations and in other international forums.
A global health strategy refocused on bilateral agreements, with direct effects on multilateral mechanisms
At the end of 2025, the new “America First” global health strategy calls for the conclusion of dozens of multi-year bilateral health cooperation agreements between the United States and recipient countries of U.S. aid. This approach prioritizes protecting the U.S. population from transnational health risks, targeted funding for essential health products, and the promotion of solutions developed by U.S.-based economic actors.
The strategy also marks a break with the traditional role of international organizations in implementing health aid, shifting toward government-to-government cooperation and increased partnerships with the private sector and faith-based organizations. It is part of a broader logic of gradual reduction in funding and the rapid transfer of financial and operational responsibilities to partner countries, through conditional agreements that include co-investment requirements and measurable results.
Several analyses, notably by the Center for Global Development and Think Global Health, highlight that this increased bilateralization limits the ability to respond to transnational health threats such as epidemics, antimicrobial resistance, and the health impacts of climate change—challenges that have historically relied on multilateral coordination mechanisms. These analyses also point to the limitations of framing global health as a tool of geopolitical rivalry, particularly in relation to China, as well as the lack of consideration for the interactions between climate and health.
Toward transactional international cooperation
Taken together, the decisions made since the beginning of the Trump administration in 2025 reflect a structural shift in international cooperation:
- Selection of multilateral frameworks deemed compatible with short-term national priorities,
- Withdrawal from mechanisms perceived as constraining or normative in areas such as diversity, climate, and equality,
- A gradual substitution of international cooperation with a transactional and bilateral logic.
This abrupt shift raises a central question about the future of global governance, multilateralism, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole.
