Outline:
Donald Trump has faced criticism for “reaching a new low” following his decision to have the US exit the United Nations’ main climate agreement.
In a Presidential Memorandum issued yesterday (7 January), the President stated that it is “not in the best interest of the United States” to continue being part of, engage with, or offer assistance to over 60 international organizations, agreements, and frameworks. Several of these bodies, committees, and advisory groups concentrate on issues such as climate change, migration, and labor.
The action comes after Trump’s ongoing attempts to promote polluting fossil fuels while slowing down advancements in clean energy initiatives. Last month, the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has eliminated all references to fossil fuels – the primary cause of global warming – from its widely accessed online page that outlines the reasons behind climate change.
Trump steps back from the UN climate agreement
The most significant exit by the Trump administration was its withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This historic agreement was approved in 1992 by nearly 200 countries, and is frequently regarded as the foundation of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which the US had already left.
It seeks to maintain greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a point that will avoid “harmful human impact on the climate system.” Nevertheless, the UNFCCC places responsibility on developed nations to take the initiative.
This implies that the US has committed to back climate change initiatives in underdeveloped nations by offering funding for adaptation that is “in addition to any financial aid they currently give to these countries”.
Which other groups has the United States left?
The administration has already ceased its backing for international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO. Recently, it has severed connections with 66 organizations, most of which operate in areas that Trump has labeled as promoting a “woke” agenda.
This encompasses the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global premier body for climate science. The IPCC offers governments across all tiers with scientific data that they can utilize to formulate climate policies.
IPCC reports also play a crucial role in international climate discussions, driving worldwide advancements. Specialists caution that abandoning the panel could undermine the scientific guidelines that safeguard the public against false information, slow progress, and “careless choices.”
Additional groups featured on the administration’s list are UN Oceans, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the International Renewable Energy Agency.
A ‘new low’ for Trump
The action caused anger among groups and climate experts globally, with numerous people stating it will render the world “much more dangerous.”
Dr Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) claims that pulling out of the fundamental climate change agreement is a “new low” for Trump – indicating that the administration is embracing “authoritarianism” and “anti-science” at the expense of its citizens’ health.
“But, progressive US states and the rest of the world acknowledge that severe and expensive climate consequences are increasing quickly, and coordinated global efforts remain the sole effective way to ensure a habitable future for our children and grandchildren,” she adds.
Leaving the global climate agreement will only lead to more isolation for the United States and reduce its influence internationally, especially after a series of unacceptable actions that have already damaged our country’s reputation, strained relationships with some of our most trusted historical allies, and increased global insecurity.
Dr Cleetus claims that the government is “catering to fossil fuel polluters”– a worry that has become more prominent after the US assumed control ofVenezuela and its oil reserves.
United States ‘not exempt’ from legal responsibilities
“At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat,” says Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
“The decision to defund and withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change and remedy climate harm, as the world’s highest court made clear last year.”
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice The (IJC) issued a landmark ruling on climate change, detailing the obligations of nations under international law. This was the most significant case ever handled by the ICJ, receiving over 150 submissions from countries, global organizations, and non-governmental groups.
The International Court of Justice serves as the top judicial body globally, yet its 133-page advisory opinion holds no legal obligation. While it does not create new international laws, it helps explain current ones and is expected to be referenced in upcoming climate-related legal cases.
The International Court of Justice confirmed that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is considered a fundamental human right, similar to the rights to water, food, and shelter.
“This move is merely an extension of this Administration’s attempts to place corporate gains above individuals and the environment, while disregarding legal principles,” Brown adds.
Leaving institutions that aim to aid global efforts against climate change does not alter the harsh truth of the climate emergency, challenge the undeniable proof of its origins, or erase the US’s obvious duty for its outcomes.
What happens next?
David Widawsky, head of the World Resources Institute, an organization focused on creating low-carbon and robust economies, claims that withdrawing from the UNFCC is a “strategic mistake” that relinquishes U.S. benefits without any compensation.
The 30-year-old agreement serves as the basis for global climate collaboration,” Widawsky states. “Abandoning it not only places America apart from the efforts— it removes the US entirely from the situation.
In the future, Widawsky forecasts that American communities and enterprises will experience economic setbacks as other nations seize the employment opportunities, financial gains, and commercial activities generated by the rapidly expanding clean-energy sector.
In 2023, 1.6 million individuals in the European Union were working within the renewable energy sector. This figure is expected to increase significantly as solar andwindemerge as the EU’s biggest source of electricity.
“Nevertheless, global climate diplomacy will not waver,” Widawsky adds.
Other countries recognize the indispensable role of the UNFCCC in fostering collaboration and promoting climate solutions that the global community desperately requires. When nations collaborate on climate issues, it saves lives, generates employment, enhances economic stability, and paves the way for a more prosperous future.
The door remains ‘open’ for the US
In a message delivered to Green, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, mentioned that “the doors are still open” for the US to return in the future.
“Although other countries are moving ahead collectively, this recent retreat from global leadership, climate collaboration, and scientific efforts will only negatively impact the US economy, employment, and quality of life, as wildfires, floods, extreme storms, and droughts continue to worsen rapidly,” he adds.
It represents a massive self-inflicted mistake that will make the US less secure and less wealthy. It will result in higher costs for energy, food, transportation, and insurance for American families and companies, as renewable sources continue to become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, as climate-related disasters increasingly impact American agriculture, businesses, and infrastructure each year, and as the unpredictability of oil, coal, and gas leads to more conflicts, regional instability, and forced migration.
The UNFCCC cautions that this action will result in fewer American manufacturing jobs, while all other major economies increase their investments in clean energy. “It is evident that this is the only approach to safeguard every nation from unprecedented global warming and its severe effects on every economy and population,” Stiell states.