The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
Who benefits from this decision?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
February 18, 2026
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
How going it alone reduces our own sovereignty.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
A municipal employee raises the US flag at Sharm el-Sheikh as the town prepares to receive foreign leaders on October 11, 2025.(Khaled Desouki / AFP via Getty Images)
Given the recent flood of news, one could be forgiven for missing the presidential memorandum dated January 7, 2026, announcing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties. But that memorandum, inconspicuous though it may appear on its face, demands careful consideration. It reflects not just another step in the Trump administration’s “Great Undoing” of the postwar international order, but also risks serious and material injury to America’s economic and national security interests. While the memorandum claims its actions will help to “restore American sovereignty,” it will do just the opposite.
The withdrawals (some still to be carried out) risk tangible harm to US interests, from household economic issues like increased energy costs and insurance premiums to national security concerns like counterterrorism and cybersecurity, to public health and the environment. While it will be difficult to ascribe any single outcome directly to any specific withdrawal, this much is clear: Multilateral engagement allows the United States to exert leadership over the rules that shape the world, and withdrawing from these engagements risks forfeiting our influence and leaving gaps for other nations—including those inimical to us—to fill. International affairs abhor a vacuum, and when we exit the scene, we create opportunities for others who will take our place. When we forfeit our international leadership, we reduce our own sovereignty.
Current Issue
March 2026 Issue
Consider a few examples. First, the impending US withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This landmark treaty was negotiated and signed by the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 and unanimously approved by the Senate soon thereafter. Presidents have long claimed the unilateral power to withdraw from Senate-ratified treaties like this one, while many in the Senate disagree, arguing that once the Senate has ratified a treaty, Senate approval is required to exit. Courts, however, have avoided deciding the matter as a political question, and so withdrawal here appears likely.
The convention itself contains a one-year waiting period for withdrawal. Assuming the administration complies with …
Who benefits from this decision?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
February 18, 2026
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
How going it alone reduces our own sovereignty.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
Share
Copy Link
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Ad Policy
A municipal employee raises the US flag at Sharm el-Sheikh as the town prepares to receive foreign leaders on October 11, 2025.(Khaled Desouki / AFP via Getty Images)
Given the recent flood of news, one could be forgiven for missing the presidential memorandum dated January 7, 2026, announcing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties. But that memorandum, inconspicuous though it may appear on its face, demands careful consideration. It reflects not just another step in the Trump administration’s “Great Undoing” of the postwar international order, but also risks serious and material injury to America’s economic and national security interests. While the memorandum claims its actions will help to “restore American sovereignty,” it will do just the opposite.
The withdrawals (some still to be carried out) risk tangible harm to US interests, from household economic issues like increased energy costs and insurance premiums to national security concerns like counterterrorism and cybersecurity, to public health and the environment. While it will be difficult to ascribe any single outcome directly to any specific withdrawal, this much is clear: Multilateral engagement allows the United States to exert leadership over the rules that shape the world, and withdrawing from these engagements risks forfeiting our influence and leaving gaps for other nations—including those inimical to us—to fill. International affairs abhor a vacuum, and when we exit the scene, we create opportunities for others who will take our place. When we forfeit our international leadership, we reduce our own sovereignty.
Current Issue
March 2026 Issue
Consider a few examples. First, the impending US withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This landmark treaty was negotiated and signed by the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 and unanimously approved by the Senate soon thereafter. Presidents have long claimed the unilateral power to withdraw from Senate-ratified treaties like this one, while many in the Senate disagree, arguing that once the Senate has ratified a treaty, Senate approval is required to exit. Courts, however, have avoided deciding the matter as a political question, and so withdrawal here appears likely.
The convention itself contains a one-year waiting period for withdrawal. Assuming the administration complies with …
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
Who benefits from this decision?
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
February 18, 2026
The Cost of US Withdrawal From 66 International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties
How going it alone reduces our own sovereignty.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
A municipal employee raises the US flag at Sharm el-Sheikh as the town prepares to receive foreign leaders on October 11, 2025.(Khaled Desouki / AFP via Getty Images)
Given the recent flood of news, one could be forgiven for missing the presidential memorandum dated January 7, 2026, announcing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties. But that memorandum, inconspicuous though it may appear on its face, demands careful consideration. It reflects not just another step in the Trump administration’s “Great Undoing” of the postwar international order, but also risks serious and material injury to America’s economic and national security interests. While the memorandum claims its actions will help to “restore American sovereignty,” it will do just the opposite.
The withdrawals (some still to be carried out) risk tangible harm to US interests, from household economic issues like increased energy costs and insurance premiums to national security concerns like counterterrorism and cybersecurity, to public health and the environment. While it will be difficult to ascribe any single outcome directly to any specific withdrawal, this much is clear: Multilateral engagement allows the United States to exert leadership over the rules that shape the world, and withdrawing from these engagements risks forfeiting our influence and leaving gaps for other nations—including those inimical to us—to fill. International affairs abhor a vacuum, and when we exit the scene, we create opportunities for others who will take our place. When we forfeit our international leadership, we reduce our own sovereignty.
Current Issue
March 2026 Issue
Consider a few examples. First, the impending US withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This landmark treaty was negotiated and signed by the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 and unanimously approved by the Senate soon thereafter. Presidents have long claimed the unilateral power to withdraw from Senate-ratified treaties like this one, while many in the Senate disagree, arguing that once the Senate has ratified a treaty, Senate approval is required to exit. Courts, however, have avoided deciding the matter as a political question, and so withdrawal here appears likely.
The convention itself contains a one-year waiting period for withdrawal. Assuming the administration complies with …
0 Comments
0 Shares
37 Views
0 Reviews
