By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration has announced its withdrawal from numerous international organizations, including the UN’s population agency and the UN climate treaty, reflecting a broader shift away from global cooperation. This decision, stemming from a review of US involvement in and funding for international bodies, targets agencies focused on climate, labor, and diversity initiatives, which the administration deems redundant or contrary to US interests. The US has previously suspended support for various UN agencies, adopting a selective approach to funding based on alignment with its agenda. This strategy marks a departure from past administrations and has prompted the UN to respond with staffing and program cuts, while also hindering global efforts to address the climate crisis.
Read the original article here
Trump pulls US out of 66 international bodies, including key UN climate treaty – it’s a lot to unpack. The sheer number, sixty-six, is pretty astonishing. It’s hard not to be struck by the breadth of these withdrawals, touching on everything from environmental cooperation to trade and even cultural preservation. It raises the question – are we witnessing a deliberate dismantling of the structures that underpin global cooperation?
One of the most significant moves, and let’s be honest, it’s alarming, is the withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is the cornerstone of international efforts to combat climate change, a global agreement, a treaty, that’s supposed to bring everyone together. Leaving it sends a pretty strong message about the US’s commitment to tackling what is, let’s face it, a pressing global crisis. It’s a signal to the world and it’s not a good one.
The list of organizations is extensive. There’s the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The implications are enormous. These bodies play critical roles in research, policy development, and the sharing of best practices. They provide a framework for cooperation and coordination – things that are essential in today’s interconnected world. It makes you wonder, what happens to America’s leadership role when it’s actively disengaging from these important collaborations?
It’s not just climate change, either. The withdrawals span a huge range of areas, like the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the International Lead and Zinc Study Group (seriously?), and even the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, an advisory body on constitutional law. It feels like a pattern. A pattern of disengagement, of isolationism. It’s almost as if the United States is actively trying to become a pariah state.
The ramifications are far-reaching. Imagine the impact on research and development, on trade negotiations, on diplomacy. It’s not simply about pulling out. It’s about losing influence, damaging relationships, and eroding trust. Other nations will certainly take note. Who will trust this country again? It also appears to be legal groundwork.
There is a sense that the US is now on the wrong side of the story. The administration appears to be systematically removing the United States from the institutional architecture that would constrain and delegitimize their plans. It’s isolating the USA from the rest of the world. The Unitary Executive Theory is being acted on and it is not law. It is MAGA’s extremely wild and untested and unfounded legal theories. THE PROBLEM is they are allowed to commit all manner of illegal acts that are not immediately stopped by the courts because the MAGA Supremes are saying our President is a King, above reproach or challenge, all while denying they are doing it.
This whole situation also highlights a deeper concern: the concentration of power. It’s unsettling that one person, in a system with supposed checks and balances, can wield such immense influence over international relations. It’s a reminder that no system is perfect. Perhaps a reevaluation of the government system will be needed in the future.
The sheer volume of withdrawals suggests a broader strategic shift. The message is pretty clear: America first, no matter the cost. But at what cost? Is this strategy sustainable? Are we going to see a different world order? It’s all just… a lot.
The withdrawals, in a LONG line of “this isn’t goods”, is not good. The implications for the US’s standing in the world are clear. Years to come will be needed to regain the trust that has been lost. It’s a bleak assessment. It’s isolating the United States from the rest of the world. Good luck America you won’t be back in good graces for years to come.