A January 7, 2026 memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations and treaties is one of the most consequential climate and multilateral decisions in years, yet it is being drowned out by the drama around Venezuela and Greenland.
What the memo actually does
The memo instructs agencies to "take immediate steps" to pull the US out of dozens of bodies, including core climate and environmental institutions. Notably, the list includes:
- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – the legal backbone of global climate cooperation, under which the Paris Agreement sits.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and related science platforms.
- Clean-energy and conservation bodies such as the International Renewable Energy Agency, International Solar Alliance, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The White House frames this as cutting "wasteful" or "globalist" institutions that are "contrary to the interests of the United States," ending US funding and participation.
Overshadowed by Venezuela and Greenland
At the same time, the US is in a full-blown geopolitical crisis after the military operation in Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro, with live coverage focused on oil, sanctions, and the future of Venezuelan governance.
In parallel, the renewed push to assert control over Greenland—including talk of acquisition and hints at military pressure—has put Denmark and NATO into "crisis mode," dominating headlines about US foreign policy.
These shocks are dramatic and visual, so they monopolize attention, while the quieter legal act of withdrawing from climate and environmental institutions gets far less scrutiny—even though its long-term impact could be larger.
What this means for global climate progress
Leaving the UNFCCC and IPCC would remove the US from the main tables where climate rules, reporting standards, and global targets are set and reviewed. Likely consequences include:
- Weaker transparency: The US would no longer be obliged to submit official emissions inventories under the UNFCCC, undermining global tracking for the world's second-largest current emitter.
- Less funding and capacity: Withdrawal from climate funds and technical bodies (like the Green Climate Fund and UN climate programs) reduces finance and expertise for mitigation and adaptation, especially in vulnerable countries.
- Damaged science and governance: Exiting the IPCC and related platforms risks politicizing climate science further and deprives the process of US data, modeling capacity, and diplomatic clout.
Experts warn this is a "self-inflicted wound" to US leadership and a signal that the US is stepping back from responsibility for its historic emissions and current fossil-fuel role.
Could this slow the energy transition?
In the near term, other major emitters and blocs (EU, China, small island states) are expected to continue pushing climate action, and some analysts argue US disengagement may even galvanize others to fill the gap. But the exit still matters because:
- It removes pressure on domestic US policy to align with global climate goals and reporting norms.
- It complicates future re-entry, potentially making it harder for a later administration to quickly rebuild trust and influence in climate negotiations.
- It slows coordination on standards, technology, and finance at precisely the moment when rapid, synchronized decarbonisation is needed.
While the Venezuela and Greenland crises capture the world's attention today, the quiet dismantling of US engagement in climate and environmental governance could shape the trajectory of global climate efforts for decades.