The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
February 18, 2026
How going it alone reduces our own sovereignty.
Given the recent flood of information, one could be forgiven for missing the January 7, 2026 presidential memorandum announcing the United States’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties. But this memorandum, as discreet as it may seem at first glance, deserves careful examination. This not only reflects a new stage in the Trump administration’s “great loss” of the post-war international order, but also risks serious and material harm to America’s economic and national security interests. While the memorandum claims its actions will help “restore American sovereignty,” it will do the exact opposite.
The withdrawals (some of which have yet to be completed) risk tangible harm to U.S. interests, from household economic issues like rising energy costs and insurance premiums to national security concerns like counterterrorism and cybersecurity, public health and the environment. While it will be difficult to attribute a single outcome directly to a specific withdrawal, one thing is clear: Multilateral engagement allows the United States to exercise leadership over the rules that shape the world, and withdrawing from these commitments risks losing our influence and leaving voids that other nations – including those hostile to us – can fill. International business abhors a vacuum and when we leave the scene, we create opportunities for others to take our place. When we lose our international leadership, we reduce our own sovereignty.
Current number
Let’s take a few examples. First, the imminent withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This historic treaty was negotiated and signed by the administration of George HW Bush in 1992 and unanimously approved by the Senate shortly thereafter. Presidents have long claimed unilateral authority to withdraw from Senate-ratified treaties like this, while many senators disagree, arguing that once the Senate has ratified a treaty, Senate approval is required to exit. The courts, however, have avoided deciding the issue as a political question, and so a withdrawal seems likely.
The agreement itself provides for a one-year waiting period for withdrawal. Assuming the administration meets this obligation, the United States will likely leave the convention in early 2027. Additionally, a future president cannot simply announce that the United States is rejoining the convention. Under its terms, a future president would again have to gain Senate ratification, which requires 67 votes — an extraordinarily high bar in today’s political environment. Once we get out of the box, we’ll likely stay out of it for the foreseeable future.
The Framework Convention was born in another era. Thirty-five years ago, the world sought to build on the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, whose widespread adoption led to the phase-out of CFCs and the rebuilding of the ozone layer. The Framework Convention aimed to establish a similar process for the much more complex issue of climate change, laying the foundations for limiting greenhouse gases and stabilizing global temperatures. Although the convention is far from perfect, it offers the best hope for coherent global cooperation to combat climate change and the risks it poses to U.S. security and prosperity.
When the United States leaves the Framework Convention, it abandons its leadership role in shaping global climate policy with no clear path back. Climate policy affects not only environmental resilience, but also trade, energy markets, migration, water instability and geopolitical stability. Additionally, the convention and its processes will continue without the United States. Nearly all other countries will remain engaged, potentially leaving America on the sidelines as its competitors consolidate their influence.
China has already assumed dominant positions in renewable energy sectors. Without U.S. presence and leadership, the global rules of the game could shift further away from U.S. economic and strategic interests. Climate instability itself leads to national security consequences, including displacement, food insecurity and conflict. Greater instability abroad ultimately produces greater insecurity at home.
Equally troubling is the domestic parallel: the EPA’s potential withdrawal of its endangerment findings. Together, these developments threaten to weaken U.S. international and domestic mechanisms to combat climate change, potentially in ways that future administrations may struggle to reverse.
Next, consider the withdrawals from the Global Cyber Expertise Forum and the Global Counterterrorism Forum. Both concern areas central to national security. Multilateral forums facilitate coordination, information sharing and capacity building. Although bilateral diplomacy can sometimes be a substitute, replacing structured multilateral engagement with fragmented bilateral negotiations is ineffective and prone to communication problems. Collective dialogue strengthens, rather than diminishes, American sovereignty.
Likewise, withdrawal from the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) risks weakening international cooperation on maritime security. Piracy disrupts trade, increases insurance costs and undermines economic stability. ReCAAP’s information sharing mechanisms enhance collective security and reduce the burden on U.S. military assets. Withdrawal risks ceding a leadership position to strategic competitors.
There are also organizations whose exit directly harms U.S. business interests. Groups like the International Lead and Zinc Study Group and the International Cotton Advisory Committee primarily provide market data that supports producers and policy makers. It is unclear how much the withdrawal will benefit domestic industries that depend on accurate global information.
Popular
“Swipe left below to see more authors”Swipe →
Other departures undermine American values. Institutions that address violence against children and sexual violence in conflict advance long-standing humanitarian commitments. These are not partisan concerns but moral and strategic concerns, reflecting widely shared principles regarding human dignity and international standards.
Viewed collectively, the withdrawals undermine U.S. sovereignty by reducing U.S. influence in shaping global rules and norms. Many institutions will continue to operate without the United States; others could weaken, creating instability that would ultimately affect U.S. interests. While some exits may be reversible, others may have long-term or permanent consequences.
When we unilaterally withdraw from these 66 entities, we risk harming a broad range of American interests. Going it alone does not strengthen American sovereignty: it reduces our influence, restricts our options, and diminishes our role in shaping the world we must inevitably navigate.
More than The nation
American politicians have invaded the summit, but Europe no longer considers the United States a reliable partner.
Carole Schaeffer
After 16 years in power in Hungary, his Fidesz party is in double digits in the polls, behind a new opposition party.
Paul Hockenos
After the Holocaust, Israel was hailed as the solution to an essentially anti-Semitic debate. Today, as another genocide unfolds – in Gaza – Jews are once again questioning the issue…
Functionality
/
Joseph Dana
If Keir Starmer is safe for the moment, it is only because of a lack of alternatives within his party.
Rachel Shabi
With its cobalt and lithium mines, Congo is at the origin of an energy revolution. It contains both the worst horrors of modern metal mining and the seeds of a more moral economy.
Functionality
/
Nicolas Niarchos
