YOU may have seen the news about the United States withdrawing from United Nations Organizations.
Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has chosen isolation over leadership by pulling out of 66 United Nations and international bodies. This decision, announced via a White House memorandum in early January 2026, marks one of the most sweeping retreats from multilateral engagement in modern U.S. history. These targeted organizations are not just symbolic. They include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and bodies dedicated to democracy, maternal health, child protection in conflict, and environmental conservation. These are the very platforms the world uses to address shared, borderless crises like climate change, pandemics, war, and democratic erosion.
We all know climate change does not respect national borders, yet the U.S. has chosen to abandon the global architecture designed to confront it. This retreat is consistent with trends from the previous Biden administration. Exiting the UNFCCC and sidelining the IPCC is not a rejection of bureaucracy; it is a rejection of science. At a time when floods, heatwaves, and food insecurity devastate communities from Asia to Africa, this withdrawal sends a dangerous message: short-term political interests outweigh planetary survival. The decision is equally troubling for global health. The U.S. contributes nearly one-fifth of the WHO’s funding. Walking away from this commitment weakens the world’s capacity to prevent pandemics, combat tuberculosis, and respond collectively to future health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic should have taught leaders a definitive lesson: isolation is not protection. Ironically, while Trump publicly distances the U.S. from international institutions, Washington continues to exert power within them. The U.S. retains its veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has used it repeatedly to block resolutions, particularly concerning Gaza.
The true cost of this withdrawal will not be borne by diplomats in New York or Geneva. It will be paid by children in conflict zones, mothers without access to healthcare, communities displaced by climate disasters, and refugees dependent on humanitarian assistance. Cutting funding to agencies like UNFPA and continuing the ban on UNRWA funding exacerbates human suffering while offering no sustainable alternative. For the Global South, this move reinforces a long-standing concern: powerful nations embrace multilateralism only when it serves them. The absence of U.S. leadership will not halt global cooperation, but it will shift it towards new alliances, new power centres, and possibly a more fragmented world.
Global leadership is not defined by stepping away when institutions become inconvenient. It is defined by reforming them, strengthening accountability, and leading by example. History will judge this moment not as an assertion of American sovereignty, but as a retreat from shared responsibility. By pulling the United States out of the IPCC, President Trump is not rejecting climate science itself, but he is deliberately severing America’s formal link to the world’s most authoritative and trusted source of climate knowledge. Walking away does not make the science disappear; it only leaves policymakers, businesses, and communities in the United States navigating unprecedented climate risks without reliable guidance at the moment it is needed most.
As record-breaking heat becomes the new normal and global emissions continue on a dangerous trajectory, weakening scientific institutions removes the guardrails that protect the public from misinformation, delay, and reckless decision-making. This retreat creates space for vested fossil fuel interests to distort facts, while frontline communities—at home and abroad—bear the escalating costs of inaction. In an era defined by climate extremes, abandoning science-based cooperation is not an act of sovereignty; it is a gamble with lives, livelihoods, and the planet’s future. Just as a reminder, the U.S. has also recently withdrawn from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a major UN climate fund, following President Trump’s directive to exit numerous international bodies deemed contrary to U.S. interests. The Treasury Secretary called the GCF “radical” and canceled past pledges, leaving the U.S. without a say in its funding for developing nations’ climate adaptation.
On the other hand, when powerful states retreat from multilateral institutions, democracy itself becomes more fragile. The erosion of global democratic forums creates a vacuum in which coercion replaces consensus and unilateral pressure supersedes international law. Venezuela is a clear example: years of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and selective recognition—often imposed outside UN-backed democratic processes—have deepened political polarization rather than resolving it, while ordinary citizens pay the social and economic cost. When global rules and institutions are weakened, democracy is no longer protected by shared norms, but reshaped by power politics, leaving smaller nations and vulnerable populations exposed to instability rather than democratic renewal.
—The writer is working journalist, based in Islamabad.
