Trump signs bill "U.S. withdraws from 66 international organizations": including the UNFCCC climate change framework, ESG regulations face challenges

President Trump Signs Out of 66 International Organizations, US Prioritizes Transactional Multilateralism, Global Governance Faces Power Vacuum
(Background recap: Trump captures Maduro: $50 million “bribe money” CIA mole lurks for half a year, replicates safe house drills)
(Additional background: “Stealing 120,000 BTC” — Bitfinex hacker couple released early: Thanks Trump, Happy New Year)

Washington D.C., January 7 — President Trump signed an announcement in the White House Oval Office, declaring the United States’ one-time withdrawal from 66 international organizations, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This move shifts “America First” from a slogan to systemic dismantling, signaling America’s willingness to abandon long-standing multilateral networks in favor of bilateral or unilateral negotiations to protect interests.

According to the White House statement, these 66 agencies “waste taxpayers’ money and violate national interests.” The Trump team linked fiscal conservatism with anti-“woke” issues, successfully portraying the withdrawal as a dual victory of austerity and defending values. After a comprehensive review of international treaties, the government decided to redirect budgets previously allocated overseas toward border walls and infrastructure. For supporters, this is sovereignty returning; for capital markets, it resembles a radical balance sheet restructuring, wiping out “diplomatic bad debts.”

Climate Negotiation Absence, ESG Rules Reboot

The most shocking among the list are climate platforms like UNFCCC and IPCC, with the US becoming the only UN member absent from climate negotiations, directly impacting corporate ESG strategies. The Los Angeles Times warns that as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) comes online without national negotiation representatives, US exporters may face high tariffs and complex certification alone. For petrochemical companies, this seems to preserve short-term profits; for investors, it increases long-term competitive costs and policy discounts.

Not all organizations are abandoned. The US deliberately retains the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International Maritime Organization (IMO), and International Labour Organization (ILO). Keeping the ITU aims to prevent Chinese companies from dominating 5G/6G standards; retaining IMO ensures that shipping routes and shipbuilding standards remain influenced by Washington. This strategic calculation shows that the US views multilateral participation as a tradable chip rather than a universal obligation. International crisis analyst Daniel Forti comments:

“He who follows me prospers; he who opposes me perishes.”

Geopolitical and New International Governance Landscape

The US withdrawal leaves a gap in global governance. ABC News analyzes that the EU and China are rapidly filling the void, from human rights to technological standards, with future rules likely favoring Brussels and Beijing’s interests. Meanwhile, domestically, constitutional disputes may arise: does the president have the unilateral authority to withdraw from treaties ratified by the Senate? Even with party changes, rejoining requires a two-thirds Senate approval, making cracks difficult to repair.

Trump’s announcement marks a profound divide in the post-World War II order: on one hand, short-term release of budgets and negotiation leverage; on the other, ceding US influence to competitors. Capital markets are beginning to reprice due to fragmented regulation and a vacuum of rules, and US companies must adapt to competing under unfamiliar standards. Transactional multilateralism may serve immediate interests, but the hidden costs are quietly accumulating.