The Trump administration’s announcement that the United States is withdrawing from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups, who describe the move as a direct attack on the global system of cooperation.
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, called the decision a “vindictive and reckless assault on the legitimacy and integrity of the United Nations and the rules-based international order”, emphasizing that the US has historically been a cornerstone of multilateral cooperation since World War II.
Is this a new disengagement or just a public show?
Critics argue that the announcement is largely performative. The United States had already disengaged from many of these bodies, chosen to defund key UN agencies, and ignored global obligations in areas including development, climate action, gender equality, and protection of children.
For example, the US has previously defunded the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which provides essential support to women and girls worldwide, including programs against gender-based violence and access to reproductive health services. By now officially withdrawing from UNFPA, the administration is further weakening international mechanisms that promote gender justice.
How does this move reflect racial and political motives?
Rosas noted that the withdrawals have explicitly discriminatory elements. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited so-called “DEI mandates” (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) as justification for leaving the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, a body of the UN Human Rights Council.
“Publicly withdrawing from organizations it had already disengaged from is not just administrative—it is an act of institutional racism and sabotage,” said Rosas. She argued that these decisions amplify inequality and send a dangerous signal that the US government is willing to undermine minority rights internationally.
What are the global consequences of leaving climate initiatives?
One of the most alarming aspects of the withdrawals is the US leaving the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). No other country has taken this step. Along with withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate bodies, the US is now actively undermining domestic and global climate action.
Analysts warn that this could:
- Increase vulnerability of US populations to climate disasters, heat waves, and extreme weather;
- Fuel global climate displacement, as poorer nations lose support for adaptation and mitigation;
- Slow down the transition away from fossil fuels, giving other countries a chance to act but leaving a significant leadership gap.
How do these withdrawals affect peace and security?
By leaving UN peacebuilding mechanisms, the US contradicts its stated commitments to global peace and security, especially at a time when President Trump has publicly threatened military action against multiple countries and requested a $1.5 trillion military budget.
Observers warn that such a dual approach—military escalation coupled with retreat from multilateral oversight—risks global destabilization, undermining accountability and leaving the world’s most marginalized populations even more exposed.
What can the international community do?
Rosas urged UN member states and international organizations to act immediately to protect the multilateral system:
- Defend international legal frameworks against erosion;
- Implement meaningful reforms to maintain accountability;
- Support human rights protections for vulnerable populations worldwide;
- Encourage the US to rejoin international agreements when conditions allow.
“Other countries cannot sit idle while the United States abandons the rules-based system,”
she said.
“The world must ensure that these institutions survive and continue to protect human rights everywhere.”
Why is this move considered short-sighted?
Beyond immediate human rights and climate concerns, analysts argue that withdrawing from development, human rights, and humanitarian bodies will eventually backfire on US citizens. Programs designed to improve global health, education, gender equality, and climate resilience also benefit the US indirectly, from reducing migration pressures to preventing pandemics.
By severing these ties, the administration is taking a self-defeating approach that risks weakening US security, credibility, and influence.
Will the global system survive US disengagement?
Erika Guevara Rosas warned that the withdrawals could have long-term consequences if left unchecked:
- Erosion of international norms: Countries may follow the US in ignoring treaties;
- Fragmentation of multilateral cooperation: UN agencies and conventions may lose authority;
- Increased human rights violations: Reduced oversight could embolden authoritarian regimes;
- Destabilization of global peace and development: Reduced collaboration on crises, conflicts, and climate disasters.
“Now more than ever,” Rosas said,
“the international community must stand firm and defend the architecture that guarantees rights, security, and cooperation worldwide.”