Nigerian American Analyst Backs US Withdrawal from 66 Global Bodies
Following the landmark decision by the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, global affairs analyst Ejike Okpa has characterized the move as a necessary reassertion of national sovereignty.
The comments of the Nigerian American analyst come in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of a presidential memorandum on January 7, 2026, directing the exit from dozens of United Nations entities and non-UN organizations.
Economic Confidential notes that among the primary targets are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the current U.S. administration has officially deemed “wasteful” and “contrary to American interests.”
In a sharply worded assessment, Okpa criticized the current structure of global governance, particularly regarding the science of climate change. “I am not a fan of the UN, WHO, WTO, or IMF—especially on the hoax and voodoo science of climate change,” Okpa stated.
He argued that the United Nations should devolve from its current state into a voluntary advisory group, where services are paid for only by those nations that explicitly require them. Okpa contended that a comparative analysis would show the UN has failed to stimulate significant economic development in the majority of countries where it operates, despite decades of intervention.
Okpa’s views align with the “America First” strategy currently driving Washington’s retreat from global treaties. He noted that true leadership is most effective when focused on internal national improvement rather than “chasing membership in lousy organizations that tend to act like they hold the key to economic development and growth.”
He added that nations thrived long before the creation of the UN in 1945. Okpa compared the U.S. role in founding the organization to a marriage, stating that being instrumental in its creation should not tie the country to it permanently. “Like a divorce—because one started the relationship does not mean they can’t get out if they want to,” he noted.
The U.S. withdrawal is expected to trigger a significant funding crisis within the UN system. As of early 2026, the United States remains the largest financial contributor to many of these bodies, and its exit leaves a multi-billion dollar vacuum in global programs, particularly in climate finance and migration management.
While international leadership has expressed regret over the withdrawal—with UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell calling it a “colossal own goal”—analysts like Okpa believe the vacuum is an opportunity for other nations to stop relying on “globalist agendas” and refocus on their own sovereign prosperity. The move marks a definitive end to the era of post-WWII multilateralism as the world transitions into a more fragmented, nationalist-centered geopolitical landscape.