Environment Policy Brief #186 | Todd J. Broadman
POLICY
A year ago, at the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as President, he signed Executive Order 14199, requesting a “government‑wide review” of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States formally supports. That review resulted in a signed a memorandum on January 6th of this year that specifies that the U.S. formally withdraw from 66 “organizations, conventions, and treaties.” Included in the 66 are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other important climate treaties. In all, the U.S. withdrew from 31 UN bodies.
Given that Trump considers man-made climate change a hoax, this recent directive is a bureaucratic formality. The official reason for U.S. non-participation? These agreements “undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas.” An early example was the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement which took effect January 27, 2026. Yet another climate change agreement that preceded the Paris Agreement, one that pledged U.S. support for climate change activities in developing countries, has also been exited.
Given that the U.S. is the second largest carbon emitting country (behind China), there are troubling implications. Domestic policies that maximize oil production are being pursued along with trade and investment policies that favor overseas mineral and oil extraction. Acquiring mineral-rich foreign territories by force or the threat of force is also an implemented strategy. GNP growth is still tightly linked to a reliance upon carbon-based energy. Withdrawal from global treaties is also consistent with the U.S. being the globe’s largest exporter of crude oil and petroleum by-products – exporting more than even Saudi Arabia.
While 27% of carbon emissions are from China, the U.S. is responsible for 13% and is sending a clear message to other UNFCCC and IPCC member states that regardless of its global climate impacts, the U.S. acts alone, independent of other states and does so solely in support of its own national interests. In the face of this bold exit, the U.N. insists that the U.S. has a “legal obligation” to pay its fair share of membership dues essential to fund agency operations. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres publicly announced he regretted the decision.
The U.S. had been contributing 20% of the UN’s budget. There are consequences for no longer paying dues. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, the U.S. will lose its vote in the General Assembly. Not much of a consequence though, given that the U.S. has been acting independently of most UN protocols. The U.S. will though, maintain its pivotal seat on the Security Council.
Within the framework of the UNFCC, the legal basis for carbon emission limits, there was good reason to believe that emission reduction targets would be met. Developed countries, led by the U.S., must report on greenhouse gas emissions and changes to domestic energy policies. The UNFCC was signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the Senate. Once again, the U.S. has chosen to isolate itself. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “once the withdrawal takes effect one year from signing, the United States will be the only country not engaged in the UNFCCC.”
With international agreements reduced to scraps of paper, the question arises as to what domestic obligations will be adhered to. Very few. Back in 2009, the EPA put in place a new set of standards based on years of evidence pointing to climate change – known as the “endangerment finding.” Like the international “scraps of paper,” Trump wants to rip-up that finding and does not want any environmental standard to impede growth and energy production.
Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director and Lead Economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that “withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe.”
As if there must be some immediate payoff to continue membership with these international organizations, Marc Rubio countered with “there is little to nothing to show for it,” concluding that “it is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people.” When asked why, Rubio added that the organizations were “mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful and poorly run.”
ANALYSIS
This pulling away from world conventions and treaties ushers in a new, multi-polar geopolitics, variously called the Trump Doctrine or “Donroe” Doctrine. He no longer has interest in a liberal international order with the U.S. modeling a global vision of a better world. Multilateral commitments, free trade interdependence, and international law are viewed as constraints on U.S. freedom.
This executive action to withdraw from international treaties is in line with other global actions and serves to further isolate this country. The idea of solidarity and cooperation to make life on earth sustainable for future generations is no longer a collective undertaking. The link between burning fossil fuels and long-term value of human rights has been severed. The larger scope of the administration is to distance itself from any “progressive ideology,” a government that has the right and freedom to make its own rules and answer to no one because of its military might.
Also important to note are the UN programs that the U.S. will continue to support. These include UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP), albeit with 90% budget cuts for each organization. The U.S. will continue its support of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“He’s just taken a bazooka and blown the whole thing apart,” says Nina Schwalbe, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Policy and Politics. She used the image of a tree cut down to describe Trump cutting ties to the World Health Organization. “Now he’s cutting down the whole forest,” she concluded.
USResist Resources:
https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/ helps senior civil servants around the world to meet global challenges by building their expertise, knowledge and connections.
https://sustainabilityonline.net/ aims to provide current news, insights, and opinions from the business world regarding sustainability in all its various applications.