US President Signs Order Withdrawing US from 66 International Organisations

Syllabus: GS2/ International Relations

In News

• The US has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN bodies.
  • The entities include climate/energy/science forums such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the International Solar Alliance (ISA). 
  • It also names development/governance and rights-related entities such as UN Women, UNFPA (UN Population Fund), UNCTAD, and UN-Habitat, along with multiple UN offices linked to peacebuilding and protection of children in conflict.

Why is the US Withdrawing?

• Sovereignty Concerns: Resistance to binding international rules perceived to constrain domestic policy autonomy.
• Perceived Institutional Bias: Allegations of politicisation, inefficiency, and bias against US or allied interests.
• Domestic Political Pressures: Multilateral commitments viewed as costly with limited direct electoral benefits.
• Burden-Sharing Argument: Claim that the US contributes disproportionately to global institutions.
• Strategic Reorientation: Preference for bilateral or minilateral arrangements over universal institutions.
• Strategic Competition: Desire to limit platforms where rival powers gain influence.

Potential Impacts

• Climate Change Setback: Weakens global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and provides other countries an excuse to delay climate commitments and finance pledges.
• Fragmentation of Multilateralism: Further erodes international governance, intensifies power rivalries, and accelerates a shift towards protectionism and smaller ad-hoc regional blocs.
• Development & Humanitarian Slowdown: US funding cuts worsen already declining international development and humanitarian aid, affecting health, education, food security, and SDG progress.
• Global Peace & Security Risks: Reduced US support to bodies like the UN Peacebuilding Commission hampers peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery, especially in conflict-prone regions such as Africa and the Caribbean.
• Weakening of Global Norms: Encourages selective compliance with international law and treaty obligations by other states.
• Leadership Vacuum: Creates space for other major powers to shape global rules and institutions.

Way Ahead

• For the UN and partners: Diversify funding sources, redesign programs to be less donor-concentrated, and widen coalitions of “core contributors” to keep essential mandates functional despite U.S. exits.
• For India: Treat this as both a risk (less predictable finance/technology cooperation in bodies like ISA/IRENA) and an opening to expand diplomatic leadership by mobilizing alternative coalitions, increasing convening through ISA-like platforms, and pushing climate-development initiatives in forums where U.S. absence increases negotiating space.

Source: TH