In a bold move that prioritizes American sovereignty and taxpayer dollars, President Donald J. Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum on January 7, 2026, directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from dozens of international organizations deemed contrary to national interests. This action stems from a comprehensive review initiated by Executive Order 14199 in February 2025, which tasked the Secretary of State and Cabinet with evaluating U.S. involvement in global bodies. The memorandum emphasizes ceasing participation and funding where legally possible, particularly for United Nations (UN) entities, to redirect resources toward domestic priorities like energy independence and national security.
This decision aligns with the “America First” agenda, cutting ties with organizations that have often imposed burdensome regulations, siphoned U.S. funds, and undermined American energy production. For the energy sector, this could mean reduced international pressure on fossil fuels and greater freedom for domestic oil, gas, and renewable innovation without globalist oversight. Let’s break down the key elements, focusing on energy implications, potential savings, impacted organizations, and broader ramifications for the UN.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
The memorandum lists 66 entities for withdrawal: 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN-related bodies. No specific effective dates are outlined beyond “as soon as possible,” with the Secretary of State providing implementation guidance. The rationale? These groups were identified as redundant, mismanaged, or harmful to U.S. interests based on the State Department’s report. Agencies must halt funding and participation immediately, subject to existing laws and appropriations.
While the order doesn’t explicitly list treaties or conventions separately, several withdrawn entities involve treaty-based frameworks, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
This signals a clean break from international commitments that have historically constrained U.S. energy policy.
Impacted Organizations: A Focus on Energy Groups
The withdrawals span a wide range, but many directly affect energy, climate, and resource management—areas where global bodies have pushed agendas like net-zero transitions that critics argue hurt American workers and energy security. Here’s a spotlight on energy-relevant ones:
Non-UN Energy-Related Organizations24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact: A voluntary initiative pushing for constant carbon-free power, often at the expense of reliable fossil fuels.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Provides scientific assessments used to justify global climate policies; U.S. withdrawal removes influence over reports that have influenced domestic regulations.
International Energy Forum (IEF): Facilitates dialogue between oil producers and consumers; exiting could streamline U.S. negotiations directly with key players like OPEC.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Promotes renewables globally; the U.S. has been a major contributor, but withdrawal frees up focus on domestic tech without international mandates.
International Solar Alliance (ISA): Aims to mobilize $1 trillion for solar by 2030; pulling out avoids commitments that could divert funds from U.S. priorities.
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21): Tracks renewable trends; exit reduces involvement in data-sharing that often critiques fossil fuel reliance.
Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development (IGF): Influences mining policies critical for energy materials like lithium and rare earths.
Other non-UN bodies like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the International Tropical Timber Organization indirectly impact energy through environmental constraints on resource extraction.
UN Energy Groups and Related Bodies
The UN withdrawals hit hard on energy fronts:
UN Energy: A collaborative program under the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which is also being exited. It coordinates global energy access and sustainability efforts, often aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that prioritize renewables over fossil fuels.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The foundational treaty for international climate action, including the Paris Agreement. Withdrawal echoes Trump’s 2017 Paris exit but goes further by quitting the core convention.
UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD): Focuses on carbon credits and forest conservation, affecting energy through biofuel and land-use policies.
UN Water: Addresses water-energy nexus, including hydropower and resource management.
Additional UN entities like the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and DESA have energy components in their economic and social mandates. Withdrawing from these could disrupt UN-led initiatives that have pushed for global energy transitions away from U.S.-dominant oil and gas.
Overall, these exits impact organizations that collectively shape global energy norms, from climate modeling to renewable promotion. For American energy producers, this means less external interference in drilling, fracking, and pipeline projects.
Financial Savings: Billions Redirected to American Priorities
One of the memorandum’s core benefits is fiscal: stopping U.S. funding to these entities could save taxpayers billions annually. Total U.S. spending on international organizations exceeds $13 billion yearly, with the UN alone accounting for a significant chunk.
Multilateral aid from the U.S. hit $5.5 billion in 2023, and foreign assistance appropriations reached $66 billion in FY2023.
Breaking it down:UN Regular Budget and Peacekeeping: The U.S. covers 22% of the UN’s $3-4 billion regular budget (about $700-800 million) and 25% of the $5.4 billion peacekeeping budget (around $1.35 billion).
Withdrawing from 31 UN entities doesn’t eliminate all dues but allows halting voluntary contributions and assessed fees for specific programs, potentially saving $2-3 billion or more if broadly applied.
Energy-Specific Savings:UNFCCC: U.S. contributed $13.3 million in 2024.
IPCC: Approximately $2-3 million annually.
IRENA and similar: Voluntary contributions likely in the tens of millions, part of broader renewable funding.
Broader Estimates: The State Department’s Contributions to International Organizations account had $1 billion in FY2025 authority, while total international programs hit $2.48 billion.
Critics note U.S. funding collapsed in 2025 due to prior cuts, but full withdrawals could redirect $1-5 billion annually toward domestic energy infrastructure, defense, or tax relief. One report suggests reallocating savings to boost defense by up to $1.5 billion (though figures vary).
These savings come at a time when U.S. energy independence is thriving, with record oil production reducing reliance on foreign entanglements.
Dramatic Impact on UN Budgets, Especially Energy Groups
The UN relies heavily on U.S. funding—America is its largest donor.
Withdrawing from 31 entities could slash UN budgets by 15-25% in affected areas, as the U.S. provided $3.38 billion (14.6%) to UN humanitarian efforts alone in 2025.
For energy groups:UN Energy and UNFCCC budgets could face shortfalls of 20-30%, forcing reliance on other donors like China or the EU, potentially shifting influence away from Western priorities.
Programs like UN-REDD and UN Water might see operations curtailed, impacting global energy sustainability initiatives that the U.S. views as overreaching.
UN officials argue the U.S. has a “legal obligation” to pay dues, but the memorandum prioritizes national law. This could lead to UN financial crises, as seen in 2025 when U.S. payments halted for some accounts.
Overall, it’s a dramatic blow, reducing U.S. leverage but freeing resources.
A Precursor to Evicting the UN from U.S. Soil?
This mass withdrawal fuels speculation about broader UN disengagement. Trump has long criticized the UN as inefficient and biased, and proposals to relocate its New York headquarters have gained traction among Republicans.
Exiting so many entities signals diminishing U.S. commitment, potentially paving the way for full withdrawal under Article 108 of the UN Charter or defunding the headquarters agreement. Advocates argue that moving the UN to Geneva or elsewhere would save U.S. taxpayers on security and maintenance costs while reducing foreign influence in American affairs. With prior exits like UNESCO and the Human Rights Council, this could be the precursor to a complete “UNexit,” aligning with America First by reclaiming sovereignty.
In summary, this Executive Order is a game-changer for U.S. energy policy, slashing wasteful spending and refocusing on domestic strength. As the Energy News Beat continues to track these developments, it’s clear: America is charting its own course, unburdened by globalist agendas.
Stu Turley, David Blackmon, Irina Slav, and Tammy Nemeth will be joined by Tom Nelson for the Energy Realities Podcast and cover this huge topic.
Sources: nytimes.com, theglobalobservatory.org, WhiteHouse.gov, dw.com, home.treasury.gov
Be the first to comment