Public reporting indicates the White House has not released the full list in its fact sheet, but the Associated Press obtained and published the complete list of 66 entities. It includes 35 non‑UN organizations (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Renewable Energy Agency, International Solar Alliance, Global Counterterrorism Forum, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Inter‑American Institute for Global Change Research, and others) and 31 UN entities (such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Women, UN Population Fund, UN Conference on Trade and Development, UN Energy, the Peacebuilding Commission and Fund, and several UN economic and social commissions). The full, itemized list of all 66 organizations is provided in the AP/Associated Press list linked below.
There is no single process for all 66 withdrawals; it depends on each organization’s rules and on U.S. law.
• UN treaties (like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change): The treaty text sets the exit procedure. For example, UNFCCC Article 25 requires a written notice to the UN Secretary‑General; withdrawal takes legal effect one year after that notice is received. Many multilateral treaties have similar 6–12‑month notice periods. • UN “entities” and programs (e.g., UN Women, UNFPA, UNCTAD): These are not usually treaties in the same way; “withdrawal” typically means stopping participation and/or non‑mandatory funding “to the extent permitted by law,” as Trump’s memo itself states and Reuters reports. Stopping voluntary contributions can often be done quickly, but stopping assessed (treaty‑ or charter‑based) contributions generally requires Congress to change or withhold appropriations. • Non‑UN bodies: Each body’s founding agreement or charter sets any formal withdrawal notice requirements; for some cooperative forums or compacts, the U.S. can simply stop participating and funding, while others require written notice and a waiting period.
In U.S. domestic law, there is an ongoing constitutional debate over how far a president can go in withdrawing from treaties and organizations without Congress, but in practice recent presidents (including Trump in his first term) have unilaterally notified treaty withdrawals and then implemented funding cuts through the budget process.
A Presidential Memorandum is a written directive from the President to executive‑branch officials. In practice it functions much like an executive order: it can direct agencies’ actions, but it does not by itself change statutes or ratified treaties.
Legal distinctions in simple terms: • Presidential Memorandum: Not formally numbered like an executive order, but when published in the Federal Register and grounded in existing statutory or constitutional authority, it has the same binding effect on federal agencies as an executive order. It is mainly a difference in form and labeling, not legal power. • Executive Order: A formal directive from the President, numbered and routinely published in the Federal Register. It must be based on existing law or constitutional authority and is binding on the executive branch, but cannot override Acts of Congress or unilaterally amend treaties. • Treaty withdrawal: Entering into a treaty requires Senate consent, but the Constitution is silent on who controls withdrawal. In practice, presidents have often withdrawn by sending notice to the treaty depositary (e.g., the UN Secretary‑General), sometimes after or together with a memorandum or executive order. Whether the President can always do this without congressional approval is contested, but courts have generally avoided deciding the issue directly.
So in this case, Trump’s Presidential Memorandum tells agencies to implement withdrawal and funding cuts under existing authorities, but any formal treaty exits still have to follow the legal procedures spelled out in each treaty and, where money is involved, in U.S. appropriations law.
The White House fact sheet and related reporting indicate that funding and participation will not all stop instantly but will be wound down “as soon as possible,” with timing varying by organization and law.
• The fact sheet and Reuters both say the memorandum orders agencies to “cease participating in and funding” the listed organizations, and that for UN entities, “withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.” That implies a phased implementation constrained by treaty terms and appropriations statutes. • For treaty‑based bodies like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the legal withdrawal only takes effect after a notice period (UNFCCC requires one year’s notice), so the U.S. remains a formal party until that period runs, though it can scale back engagement sooner. • For entities funded mainly by voluntary contributions (e.g., UNFPA already had U.S. funding largely cut before this), most of the financial withdrawal can occur quickly through administrative decisions and future budget requests.
The memorandum itself does not publicly specify a single calendar schedule for all 66 bodies, so precise timelines for each organization are not yet available.
Neither the White House fact sheet nor independent reporting has yet provided a consolidated dollar estimate of how much will be saved annually across all 66 organizations, nor a detailed, line‑item plan for where every dollar will go.
What is stated publicly: • The fact sheet says the withdrawals will “end American taxpayer funding and involvement” in these entities and presents this as saving money and allowing a refocus on domestic priorities such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, but it gives no specific savings figure. • Reuters likewise reports that the administration describes the move as ending funding for entities that “advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities,” without quantifying total cuts.
Because U.S. contributions vary widely by entity and some were already sharply reduced before this memorandum (e.g., UNFPA, UNRWA, WHO), there is currently no authoritative, aggregated public estimate of annual savings attributable specifically to these 66 withdrawals.
Analysts and reporting suggest these withdrawals will likely weaken or complicate U.S. cooperation with allies on major cross‑border issues, especially climate, health, development, and conflict prevention.
• Climate: Exiting the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change removes the U.S. from the main global negotiating framework and from the principal scientific assessment body. Experts quoted by the Los Angeles Times and others say this sidelines the U.S. in setting global climate rules and undermines coordinated action, though U.S. states, cities, and private actors can still collaborate internationally. • Health and development: The administration has already moved to leave or defund the World Health Organization and the UN Population Fund, both key platforms where allies coordinate on pandemics, maternal health, and reproductive health. Reduced U.S. engagement and funding can create gaps that allies or rival powers (notably China) may fill, diluting U.S. influence on global health standards and programs. • Security, peacebuilding, and human rights: Leaving bodies such as the UN Peacebuilding Commission, UN Women, UNFPA, and related special‑representative offices reduces U.S. participation in multilateral work on conflict prevention, support to fragile states, women’s rights, and protection of civilians in conflict. Allies that prioritize these agendas are likely to see Washington as less reliable or willing to share burdens.
In sum, while the administration frames the move as restoring sovereignty and saving money, most outside experts cited in major outlets argue it will reduce U.S. leverage in shaping international rules and may strain cooperation with partners who depend on these forums to coordinate policies on climate, global health, and security.