Global & US Headlines
Trump Signs Memorandum Pulling U.S. Out of 66 International Organizations
On 7 Jan 2026, President Donald Trump ordered all federal agencies to end participation and funding for 31 UN bodies and 35 other multilateral groups, marking the largest single-day U.S. withdrawal from international institutions in modern history.
Focusing Facts
- The memorandum explicitly lists exits from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Women, UN Population Fund, and the India-led International Solar Alliance.
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the exits as targeting entities that promote “radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs,” saying U.S. taxpayer savings would be redirected to domestic priorities.
- If completed, the U.S. would become the first nation to leave the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the treaty underpinning the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Context
Great-power ambivalence toward multilateralism is not new: in 1919 the U.S. Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations covenant, and in 1984 Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. from UNESCO, only to re-enter two decades later. Trump’s 2026 mass withdrawal continues that pendulum, but at unprecedented scale, underscoring a century-long tension between sovereignty-first politics and the post-1945 rules-based order Washington itself built. Strategically, the move accelerates a shift already visible since the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2017 Paris exit: major powers now treat global bodies à la carte, funding only those that align with immediate interests. Over a 100-year horizon, this moment could either be a blip—like the 1920s isolationism that ended with World War II—or a tipping point where fragmented, issue-specific coalitions replace universal institutions, leaving vacuums China, India and private networks may fill. Whether climate governance, public-health coordination and standard-setting can survive without sustained U.S. engagement will shape the efficacy—and legitimacy—of multilateralism for generations.
Perspectives
Right-leaning or pro-Trump outlets
e.g., Greater Kashmir, Devdiscourse, Bernama — Portray Trump’s pull-out as a fulfilment of his “America First” pledge that stops wasting U.S. money on globalist bodies that undermine sovereignty. Echo White House talking points with little scrutiny of practical fallout, reflecting incentives to cater to conservative or nationalist audiences that applaud reduced multilateral entanglements.
International liberal & progressive publications
e.g., The Jakarta Post, The Indian Express, Deutsche Welle, Scroll.in — Frame the withdrawals as a drastic retreat from multilateral cooperation that jeopardises climate action, gender equality and U.S. global influence. Highlight worst-case consequences and quote critics like the NRDC while downplaying Trump supporters’ fiscal or sovereignty arguments, aligning with pro-multilateral, climate-focused editorial stances.
Wire-service style outlets focused on straight economic or diplomatic facts
e.g., BSS/AFP copy, ETCFO — Report the memorandum’s basic facts—number of organisations, stated reasons and quoted phrases—without attaching value judgments. By privileging brevity and neutrality these pieces may implicitly legitimise official framing through uncritical repetition, a commercial incentive to remain broadly usable by multiple subscribers. ( Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) , ETCFO.com )