On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from sixty-six international organizations, conventions, and treaties that his administration has deemed contrary to U.S. interests. Nearly half of these entities are United Nations organizations that promote global stability, equality, and wellbeing. Such sweeping withdrawals place at risk long-standing human rights frameworks that protect fundamental rights and accountability in the United States and around the world. In response, the Carr-Ryan Center has called on its faculty and fellows to share informed perspectives on how these withdrawals could shape international policy and global human rights.
The views shared in this series are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Carr-Ryan Center or Harvard Kennedy School. We share them to foster learning and dialog on current human rights issues.
Commentary
Olivier Alais
Technology & Human Rights Fellow
"On Wednesday, 7 January, the Trump administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from 66 organizations, half of which are linked to the UN. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the oldest agency in the UN system, is not affected. Nevertheless, the administration had already set the tone during the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference, held last November in Baku, signaling a clear recalibration of its engagement within the UN system.
What is at stake is not only the future of specific UN bodies or technical forums, but the broader question of whether digital governance will remain anchored in shared norms or a piece of puzzle in transactional geological reality.
In a plenary statement, the U.S. delegation announced its disengagement from several ad hoc groups, arguing that negotiations had drifted from the ITU’s core mandate into ideological or politicized territory. It called for a “back to basics” approach, limiting the ITU’s work to telecommunications and ICT development, and rejected references it viewed as infringing on national sovereignty, including the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals." Read Alais' full commentary here.
Nayyab Ali
Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Fellow
"No doubt, the United States of America has worked tirelessly to reshape the liberal global order after the devastating conflicts of the 19th century. The U.S. has played a significant role in giving birth to the United Nations—an institution that serves as a cornerstone for global peace, international diplomacy, and cooperation. The recent decision of the U.S. to withdraw from dozens of international bodies and UN entities is concerning and is causing distress among marginalized communities across the world. The abrupt decision by the White House reflects a structural retreat from global governance. The transition could have devastating effects for marginalized communities that have not only perceived the United States as a leader in safeguarding transnational norms but also a guarantor of human rights, gender equality, climate justice, peacebuilding, and development. Read the Ali's full commentary here.
These abandoned institutions contributed crucially in advancing gender-based violence frameworks to recognize violence against transgender and nonconforming genders, which often went unchecked on a regional level.
Lotem Bassan-Nygate
Assistant Professor of Public Policy, HKS
Carr-Ryan Center Faculty Committee
"The U.S. withdrawal from dozens of international organizations, agreements, and UN bodies marks a dramatic moment in global governance. While unprecedented in its breadth, this move fits a wider pattern of disengagement. Since returning to office, President Trump has overseen U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, and the World Health Organization. The United States is not alone: from Brexit to Nicaragua’s exit from the UN Human Rights Council and Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC, institutional exit has become a recurring feature of contemporary international politics.
In new research coauthored with Sabrina Arias, we argue that such withdrawals function as powerful political signals that can shape public opinion at home and abroad.
In new research coauthored with Sabrina Arias, we argue that such withdrawals function as powerful political signals that can shape public opinion at home and abroad. Public reactions matter most in issue areas like climate change and human rights, where enforcement often depends on public legitimacy and mobilization rather than coercion. To assess how withdrawal affects public attitudes, we conducted three studies in the United States and Argentina, leveraging the period immediately before and after the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
Our findings offer both good and bad news for global governance. Withdrawal functions primarily as a cue for a leader’s political base, weakening domestic support for the Paris Agreement and, in some cases, for climate action and international law. At the same time, international effects are more limited in scope—even when the withdrawing country is as powerful as the United States. As the Trump administration steps back from dozens of international institutions, these signals are most likely to weaken domestic backing for specific forms of cooperation, not to undermine public support for global governance at large. "
Desirée Cormier Smith
Human Rights & U.S. Foreign Policy Fellow
"The U.S. withdrawal from international organizations that it says promotes "DEI, gender equity, or climate orthodoxy" is a dangerous move that will undercut U.S. credibility, national security, and the well-being of Americans. Among the list of 66 entities is the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, a body established in 2021 in recognition of the unique challenges people of African descent face globally. This means that the approximately 48 million Americans who identify as Black will no longer have their government engaged in this critical body where issues impacting us are discussed. It is also worth noting that the Trump administration had already disengaged from this body and there was no U.S. dedicated funding to it."
The U.S. withdrawal from international organizations that it says promotes "DEI, gender equity, or climate orthodoxy" is a dangerous move that will undercut U.S. credibility, national security, and the well-being of Americans.
Kelly Fay Rodríguez
Human Rights & U.S. Foreign Policy Fellow
"The U.S. government withdrawal from 66 international organizations abandons critical global efforts to advance human rights and economic stability abroad and at home. Pulling out of organizations that seek to remedy historic and ongoing racial, gender, environmental and economic disparities jeopardizes the ability of the U.S. to seek or ensure minimum standards in the global economy. Make no mistake, this will detrimentally impact workers around the world and inside the U.S.
Make no mistake, this will detrimentally impact workers around the world and inside the U.S.
By withdrawing, the U.S. repudiates global efforts to address labor standards and economic practices that impact America’s workforce and economy. The Global Forum on Migration and Development, the International Trade Centre, and the UN Conference on Trade and Development are just a few of those major global entities that impact workers’ rights. In addition, the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development; the International Cotton Advisory Committee; the International Energy Forum, ECOSOC, and so may more, play important roles in setting shared standards and establishing dialogues for broader economic prosperity.
Shamefully, this is just one more example of many actions over the last year by this Administration that blatantly contradict its claims of seeking to improve peoples’ lives. "
Matthew Finkel
Technology & Human Rights Fellow
"The withdrawal is a particularly painful self-inflicted injury. America is surrendering influence without a fight by handing its adversaries 66 victories and free rein to set the agenda for more.
If the Trump Administration believes this decision only affects refugees or UN bureaucrats, they're deluding themselves. This hurts us everywhere. Partners won't take our government or its diplomats as seriously, and we'll lose votes elsewhere that we should have won. The United States used to shape international rules; now we just complain about them."
The withdrawal is a particularly painful self-inflicted injury. America is surrendering influence without a fight by handing its adversaries 66 victories and free rein to set the agenda for more.
Antonio L. Ingram II
Racial Justice Fellow
"The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent undermines the important work of combatting racial discrimination. The Forum’s mandate seeks to address “challenges of all the scourges of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and all their contemporary forms and manifestations confronted by people of African descent and that impede the full and effective realization and enjoyment of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The decision to withdraw from the work of this important institution undermines the critical work of combatting persistent legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and western colonialism. Given the prominent role of the United States in contributing to those human rights abuses, our country should be seeking to remediate those legacies. Instead, this decision withdraws our voice from important conversations and collaborations. The United States made significant contributions to painful histories of discrimination and dehumanization of the African diaspora both domestically and internationally and we should not shy away from helping to craft visions for more just futures."
The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent undermines the important work of combatting racial discrimination.
Kathryn Sikkink
Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy, HKS
Carr-Ryan Center Faculty Committee
"The January 7th Presidential memorandum is entitled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.” The problem with it starts right there with the Trump Administration’s narrow, short-term, and idiosyncratic understandings of U.S. interests. Trump eschews any understanding of world politics as a longer-term game where questions of reputation, reliability, and common interests and purposes are at stake.
Trump eschews any understanding of world politics as a longer-term game where questions of reputation, reliability, and common interests and purposes are at stake.
We live in a world with many global problems, but no global government. The countries of the world try to handle their common problems through governance without government, or what we call global governance. Trump may be the most powerful man in the world, but he cannot run the world or bully all of it into obedience. The U.S. has historically constructed and participated in this governance and used our power, including the power of our ideas and our arguments, to gain the support of other countries for the positions we advocate. This memorandum signals the U.S. backing off both symbolically and substantively from that long standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations." Read Sikkink's full commentary here.
Jessica Stern
Human Rights & U.S. Foreign Policy Fellow
"LGBTQI+ communities and other marginalized groups rely disproportionately on multilateral institutions because domestic systems frequently fail to protect them. The Trump Administration’s withdrawal from 31 UN mechanisms therefore has profound consequences: it seeks to discredit and weaken agencies that are already overburdened and underfunded. Institutions such as the UN Population Fund provide essential public goods, including efforts to end gender-based violence and child marriage, expand comprehensive sexuality education, and ensure access to HIV/AIDS services and treatment. These functions are life-saving and benefit constituencies across the political spectrum. The likely human cost of disengagement is catastrophic. Yet, the intensity of the attack on multilateralism reflects the power of international cooperation. Those committed to global governance and shared standards now face an obligation and an opportunity to defend these institutions."
The likely human cost of disengagement is catastrophic. Yet, the intensity of the attack on multilateralism reflects the power of international cooperation.
Leo Varadkar
Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Senior Fellow
"What can I say? As a non-American, I don’t feel it’s my place to tell you how to run your country or who to vote for or what to think, so I won’t. But perhaps I can offer a dispassionate international perspective. All or almost all of these bodies will continue to the do their work. They will be less effective without America at the table, for sure, but they will continue to operate. The absence of the U.S., means more influence for other large nations like China which is willing to fill the gap and perhaps also India, Brazil, Russia and the European Union."
The absence of the U.S., means more influence for other large nations like China which is willing to fill the gap and perhaps also India, Brazil, Russia and the European Union.