Science Diplomacy Takes a Direct Hit as U.S. Withdraws from Dozens of Global Institutions
President Donald Trump's executive order signals a further retreat from global cooperation — and a dismantling of science diplomacy infrastructure.
The Trump administration’s decision to pull the U.S. out of 66 international groups and agreements is one of the biggest breaks in global science cooperation in decades.
While many people see this as a fight over climate laws or politics, the deeper meaning is more serious. The U.S. is leaving the very organizations that create shared scientific facts, organize global evidence, and turn research into real-world rules.
At the heart of this exit are two major climate frameworks. The first is the the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a platform for the world’s climate summits. The second is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which provides governments with regular reports on the science of a warming world.
Together, these groups support global climate talks. They connect scientific research to decisions that affect trillions of dollars in investments, insurance, and construction.
Experts, such as Delta Merner from the Union of Concerned Scientists, point out that leaving these groups doesn’t make the science go away. Instead, it leaves people, businesses, and leaders in the U.S. “flying in the dark” without the reliable information they need to make decisions.
However, the U.S. withdrawals have impacts far beyond climate issues.
Leaving the Systems That Govern Science
Among the groups the U.S. is leaving are organizations that may not often make the news but quietly help governments understand and manage global risks.
These include groups that report on the health of nature, such as IPBES and IUCN, as well as organizations like IRENA and REN21 that track how much renewable energy the world uses and how much it costs.
Unlike regular diplomatic groups, these bodies do not just negotiate political deals.
They provide the “gold standard” facts that everyone else uses. They create the official measurements for nature loss, the predictions for future pollution, and the data on energy costs that governments, courts, and banks use to make big decisions.
By pulling out, the U.S. is removing itself from the process that decides what counts as reliable evidence for the world’s environment and energy rules.
From Influence to Absence
In a statement released Wednesday, the White House said the groups it is leaving push “globalist agendas” and go against U.S. independence and its economy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described these groups as poorly managed and controlled by specific political ideas.
However, this view ignores what these organizations actually do. Science groups are not there to force nations to follow rules. Instead, they act as a way for everyone to stay organized. Their power comes from setting the goals for research, creating shared standards, and helping everyone understand the facts, not from using force.
Leaving these groups does not stop global scientific work, but it does change who is in charge. China, the European Union and a growing group of other nations are still active members of the organizations the U.S. is leaving.
As American involvement ends, these other nations will have more power to decide how research is done, how progress is measured, and what the long-term goals should be. This will eventually change global markets, laws, and the way the world works.
Effects on Global Centers and Beyond
The immediate impact of this decision will be felt most in cities like Geneva, Bonn, Nairobi, and Rome, where many of these science organizations are based.
These offices will likely face major funding shortages, job cuts, and canceled projects, especially in programs that were paid for by the U.S. to help different nations work together and build their own scientific skills.
Over time, the results may be harder to see but will last much longer. As the U.S. leaves the groups that set the basic facts for science, it risks losing its seat at the table.
Instead of helping to write the global rules for things like climate financial risks, renewable energy standards, and nature protection, the U.S. will simply have to follow the rules that other nations create.
This move is more than just a step away from working with other nations. It is a withdrawal from the very system that allows science to act as a shared language for how the world is governed.
A Turning Point for Science Diplomacy
Science diplomacy has long acted as a stabilizer for the world.
It has kept nations talking and working together even when their governments were fighting. During the Cold War, shared scientific groups made it possible for the U.S. and its rivals to monitor nuclear weapons, track diseases, and watch the environment despite their deep disagreements.
The current U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations completely flips this logic. Instead of seeing science groups as neutral places where everyone can meet, the current administration treats them as political tools that go against national interests.
Whether a future government can easily rejoin these groups is still a difficult legal and political question. What is already clear, however, is that leaving has immediate effects. The U.S. is losing its influence, breaking important research networks, and weakening the fact-based decision-making that global leadership depends on.
“The preparation of the scientific reports agreed by the member governments for this assessment cycle is underway,” IPCC Chair Jim Skea said in response to the U.S. withdrawal.
“The panel continues to make decisions by consensus among its member governments at its regular plenary sessions,” he said. “Our attention remains firmly on the delivery of these reports.”
For the field of science diplomacy, this is not just a small change. It is a major break in how the world’s nations have functioned for decades.
The Science Diplomat examines how science, technology, and international affairs intersect, and how scientific knowledge increasingly shapes diplomacy, security, and global governance.