On Jan. 22, 2026, the U.S. formally withdrew from the World Health Organization. In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. accused the organization of abandoning its core mission and acting “repeatedly against the interests of the United States.” This decision is part of a wider pattern: Since taking office for his second term, President Donald Trump has overseen the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the U.N. Human Rights Council, as well as dozens of other international organizations, agreements, and U.N. bodies.
And Trump is not the only one. From Brexit to Nicaragua’s exit from the U.N. Human Rights Council and Hungary’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, institutional exits are a salient feature of contemporary international politics.
These moves are not merely symbolic. They send powerful political signals and have substantive impacts on international policy coordination. When governments withdraw from international institutions, they communicate something to domestic audiences about the value of global governance, international law, and the policies those institutions govern. What remains less clear is how the public responds to these signals.
In a recent working paper, we provide new evidence from the United States and Argentina that sheds light on this question. We find that signals of withdrawal weaken public support for the Paris Agreement and, in some cases, for climate action and international law – especially among the withdrawing leader’s supporters.
Studying international withdrawal
In the U.S., we fielded a survey experiment in early January 2025, just before Trump’s second inauguration, when it was suspected but still uncertain whether the administration would leave the Paris Agreement. Respondents were exposed to expert projections that the U.S. was likely to withdraw from the global climate change agreement, likely to remain, or that the outcome was uncertain. We then recontacted a subset of respondents immediately after the new administration’s Jan. 20, 2025, formal announcement that the U.S. would again withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
To assess whether these dynamics extended beyond the United States – as well as whether U.S. withdrawal sends a broader signal to international audiences – we conducted a survey in Argentina. Our survey randomly exposed respondents to information about a potential Argentine withdrawal, news of the U.S. exit, or basic background information about the Paris Agreement with no mention of withdrawal.
In both countries, we measured support for the Paris Agreement, broader climate attitudes, and views of international law and institutions.
What happens when leaders signal withdrawal?
We have three main findings.
First, in both the U.S. and Argentina, respondents who were told that their country might withdraw expressed less support for the Paris Agreement than did those who were told the country was likely to remain, or that the outcome was uncertain. This effect was particularly notable among those politically aligned with the Trump administration, such as Republicans in the United States.
When we recontacted the U.S. survey respondents immediately after Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement – between Jan. 23 and Feb. 27, 2025 – we saw the same pattern: The percentage of Republicans who supported the Paris Agreement was 9.3 points lower than before the withdrawal. For supporters of the president, withdrawal served as evidence that the Paris Agreement is less valuable or worth defending.
In some cases, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement had an effect on attitudes towards international institutions more broadly. In Argentina, we find that support for international law and other international agreements shifts negatively when withdrawal is anticipated. These results, however, likely reflect reduced support for human rights and security institutions, with limited impacts on attitudes about economic or other environmental institutions. In the U.S. survey experiment, we find that Republican respondents who read that the U.S. will withdraw from the agreement became less supportive of international law, but these attitudes did not decrease further after Trump’s announced withdrawal.
Second, withdrawal has more limited effects on broader climate attitudes, particularly in polarized contexts. In our U.S. survey, signals of withdrawal did not meaningfully shift underlying beliefs about climate change. In Argentina, however, where climate attitudes are less polarized, withdrawal cues produced modest declines in climate concern.
Lastly, we found that the effects of the U.S. withdrawal on international audiences were constrained. In Argentina, exposure to news of the U.S. withdrawal led to a small decline in climate attitudes but did not meaningfully affect support for the Paris Agreement, international law, or other international institutions.
Good news and bad news for global governance
Taken together, these findings point to both vulnerability and resilience in global governance.
The bad news is that when leaders withdraw – or even threaten to withdraw – from international institutions, these decisions can weaken public support at home, particularly among a leader’s political base. Withdrawal can even erode support for international law in other issue areas. For climate cooperation specifically, which relies heavily on public legitimacy, this poses a real challenge.
The good news is that these effects appear limited. Withdrawal does not fundamentally reshape underlying climate beliefs, nor does it trigger widespread collapse in broader public support for international cooperation. Even when a central power like the U.S. disengages, global public support remains largely intact. Withdrawal cascades are unlikely, and the Paris Agreement will likely continue on without U.S. participation.
Ultimately, a withdrawal announcement functions primarily as a cue for a leader’s supporters. As the U.S. steps back from international institutions, these signals are most likely to weaken Republicans’ support for specific forms of cooperation – but not undermine public support for global governance at large. That resilience helps explain why international institutions often survive this type of political exit – and why reengagement remains possible when domestic politics change.
Sabrina B. Arias is an assistant professor of international relations at Lehigh University. She has published works on international organizations, diplomacy, and climate politics. Her current book project investigates how small states are more powerful diplomatic actors than previously believed because of their investments in diplomatic expertise.
Lotem Bassan-Nygate is an assistant professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Her research focuses on how global governance and diplomacy both shape and are shaped by public opinion, with a focus on human rights and Israel. Her current book project argues that governments use international shaming for political and reputational benefits, even when it fails to induce compliance.
