US Quits Global Internet Freedom Groups Labeling Them As “Wasteful, Ineffective, and Harmful”

When a major government pulls out of a climate agreement or a trade deal, it's usually quite clear what that means for supply chains or emissions targets. But when it walks away from internet freedom bodies, the consequences may not be as easy to picture – yet, they're often much more far-reaching. That is exactly the moment we are in right now.

With a recent executive order, the United States has started withdrawing from the biggest international organizations, conventions, and multilateral initiatives related to the governance and protection of the open internet, labeling them “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful.” This is not just another bureaucratic reshuffle. It is a deliberate retreat from decades of internet freedom norms that the US itself helped build.

What Exactly Did The US Withdraw From?

The starting point is clear on paper. The White House published an executive order titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties That Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States”. It lays out a sweeping framework to review and exit multilateral arrangements that, in the administration’s view, no longer serve US interests.

Shortly after, the State Department followed up with its own statement on “withdrawal from wasteful, ineffective, or harmful international organizations.” Buried in that broad language is a clear signal: internet and digital policy bodies are fair game.

One of the high-profile targets is the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), a group of governments that, since 2011, has worked together to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms online.

According to its own 2024 fact sheet, the coalition members have coordinated positions on issues like opposing network shutdowns and blanket censorship, supporting strong encryption and privacy by design, setting human rights standards for surveillance and law enforcement access to data, and defending civil society and journalists targeted for their online speech.

In parallel, broader cyber capacity and governance efforts, such as those coordinated by the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), are now also under political pressure. While the GFCE is more about practical cooperation and capacity building than rights language, it still plays a crucial role in helping countries secure their networks without simply defaulting to shutdowns and heavy-handed monitoring.

Digital policy analysts have already started sounding the alarm. As one detailed assessment in Tech Policy Press put it, the decision effectively ends America’s traditional leadership role on internet freedom and opens the door for more authoritarian models to fill the vacuum.

Why This Matters More Than It Might Seem

At first glance, stepping away from yet another acronym-filled forum can look like administrative housekeeping. If you never heard of the FOC or the GFCE before, you are not alone.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: a lot of what makes your online life feel “normal” is anchored in exactly these kinds of spaces.

When multiple countries agree that they should not shut down the internet during protests, that activists should not be jailed for tweets, and that encryption should not be quietly outlawed, they usually arrive at that consensus through years of low-profile work inside coalitions and forums. Pull a major actor out of that ecosystem, and these things tend to happen:

• Existing norms get weaker. There is less political weight behind statements that say “governments should not use internet shutdowns or pervasive surveillance as default tools.”
• Alternative models get louder. States that argue the internet should be tightly controlled at the national level gain more room to push their frameworks.
• Civil society and independent experts lose access. There are fewer channels where rights groups, technologists, and researchers can push back against restrictive proposals.

Being one of the major world powers, the US played an outsized role in shaping these conversations for years. It was often inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, but it did put its name on open internet principles and invested diplomatic capital in them. Walking away sends the opposite signal: that global internet freedom is optional, negotiable, and secondary to short-term domestic politics.

We don't need to look far for examples of how quickly the whole population can be cut off. The economic protests in Iran that started at the end of last year have now evolved into a full-blown nationwide blackout – and it's not without bloodshed either.

This may be an extreme example, sure, but even if you don't live in or near Iran, such situations are a lot closer to home than they might seem.

What Could This Shift Trigger Globally?

If we zoom out a bit, three broad scenarios become more likely when a major power pulls back from internet freedom bodies.

1. Fragmentation Of The Global Internet

We are already seeing the rise of more “sovereign internet” models, where governments seek technical and legal control over what information crosses their borders. A weaker, more fragmented system of global norms makes it easier for more countries to introduce sweeping content controls in the name of “national security” or “cultural values,” mandate local data storage that increases surveillance risk, and build regional intranets that are technically separated from the global web.

For you, that can look like more geo restrictions when you travel, different versions of the same platform depending on where you are, and a growing list of sites or apps that simply do not load in certain countries.

2. Normalization Of Intrusive Surveillance

When fewer governments publicly commit to protecting encryption and limiting state access to communications data, it becomes easier to argue that backdoors into secure messaging are “necessary” to fight crime or terrorism, that mass data retention by ISPs is just “good practice,” and that fine-grained tracking of online behavior is a fair price for “safety.”

Internet freedom coalitions have historically been a counterweight to that kind of narrative. If that voice weakens, the balance tilts toward deeper monitoring of online life, often with very little transparency or oversight.

3. More Aggressive Censorship And Network Interference

In regions where internet shutdowns or targeted blocking are already used during elections, protests, or crises, a weaker global norm against such measures can be interpreted as an unspoken permission.

That does not just mean entire networks going dark. It also includes more subtle interference, such as deep packet inspection that identifies and blocks VPNs and circumvention tools. Other methods include throttling bandwidth for specific services like streaming, gaming, or video calls, and selective takedowns of news outlets, independent blogs, or social media accounts.

In many parts of the world, these tactics are already a reality. What changes when global internet freedom bodies lose members is not that such measures suddenly appear, but that they become harder to contest and stigmatize.

The Norms We Walk Away From Shape The Net We Get

Internet governance can seem distant until it suddenly is not. One day it's all good – the next your favorite site may disappear from your country, your crypto exchange login might start failing from abroad, and a game you paid for could suddenly stop loading because your IP looks “suspicious.” Or, of course, things can become quite a bit more dire when a protest in your city coincides with “mysterious” network outages.

The US stepping back from internet freedom bodies significantly weakens long-standing global norms against shutdowns, censorship, and intrusive surveillance. It makes it easier for “sovereign internet” models to spread and increases the risk of a more fragmented, heavily monitored web for everyone, no matter what's written on your passport.

We don't know what the future holds, but in times like these, it absolutely pays to be vigilant. Pay attention to how the internet is being reshaped, and be intentional about the online privacy and security decisions you make, as well as the technologies you choose to depend on.