Trump withdraws U.S. from key climate treaty and dozens of other organizations

President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from dozens of international organizations, including many working to combat climate change.

Nearly half of the 66 affected institutions are associated with the United Nations, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change – the basis for all international efforts to combat global warming.

Also included are groups working on development, gender equality and conflict, areas that the Trump administration has repeatedly dismissed as advancing a “globalist” or “woke” agenda.

The White House said the decision was made because the entities “no longer serve U.S. interests” and pursue an “ineffective or hostile agenda.”

The memo was signed Wednesday after a review in which the White House called the organizations a “waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“These divestments will end U.S. taxpayer funding and participation in entities that prioritize a globalist agenda over U.S. priorities,” it said in a statement.

The report added that many organizations pursue “aggressive climate policy, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic power.”

In addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States has withdrawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the world’s leading authority on climate science and the most respected collection of scientific reports on rising global temperatures.

Sources within the organization told the BBC they were concerned about the potential impact of the Trump administration’s withdrawal on US scientists involved in the agency’s next set of studies.

The White House has blocked American scientists from attending conferences in China.

Any restrictions on travel or participation by U.S. researchers could significantly delay the release of the next set of IPCC reports, which could include its Mitigation Report – a key document that guides governments on how to combat climate change.

Non-UN organizations affected by the U.S. withdrawal include those focused on clean energy cooperation, democratic governance, and international security, such as the International Solar Alliance, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum.

Trump has stripped funding from many multilateral organizations he dislikes and has previously rejected the scientific consensus on man-made climate change as a “hoax.”

It will take another year for the United States to completely withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but in fact the United States has already stopped effective participation in the United Nations climate change agency.

It is unclear whether the move will be challenged in U.S. courts, as many activists are now urging.

While the U.S. Constitution allows the president to join a treaty “with the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators,” it does not specify what would happen if they withdraw. Therefore, it is uncertain whether a future president would be able to overturn Trump’s decision and opt back in simply by applying.

These latest divestments come after President Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement for the Second Time Last year, it refused to send a delegation to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil.

The United States has also withdrawn from the World Health Organization, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO.

European leaders criticized the latest decision, warning it would weaken global cooperation.

EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “underpins global climate action” and called the US retreat “regrettable and unfortunate”, while EU Vice President for Clean Transition Teresa Ribera said the government cared little for the environment, health or human suffering.

A member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US non-profit advocacy group, described the move as a “new low”.

Senior policy director Rachel Cleetus told AFP it was another sign of the government’s determination to sacrifice people’s well-being and destabilize global cooperation, describing it as “authoritarian” and “anti-science”.