US Withdraws From Climate Treaty: What It Means for Global Action [2025]

Understanding the US Withdrawal from Global Climate Treaties

In early 2025, the Trump administration issued a presidential memorandum that reverberated through every climate negotiation chamber, international forum, and environmental agency on Earth. The United States, the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter and the economic engine behind decades of global climate diplomacy, announced it would withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and 65 additional international organizations.

This wasn't a surprise move. It was promised. But the scope and speed caught many observers off guard.

What makes this withdrawal historically significant isn't just that one nation is stepping back from climate commitments. It's that the US helped create these frameworks. The UNFCCC, established in 1992, exists because American negotiators helped architect it. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, carries America's fingerprints throughout. Now the country that helped build this global infrastructure is dismantling its participation while still being legally bound until the withdrawal process completes.

This article breaks down what happened, why it matters, what it means for the US economy and security, and what comes next for global climate action without American leadership at the table.

The Scale of the Withdrawal

Let's start with numbers, because they tell the real story.

The Trump administration didn't just pull out of one agreement. The presidential memorandum targeted 66 international organizations total. Of those, 31 are UN entities. The organizations included weren't just climate-focused bodies. They spanned:

• Climate and environment: UNFCCC, IPCC, UNEP, International Union for Conservation of Nature
• Energy: International Renewable Energy Agency, International Energy Agency partnerships
• Development and humanitarian work: UN Population Fund, UN Development Programme partnerships
• Democracy and human rights: UN Human Rights Council mechanisms, democracy promotion funds
• Trade and economic coordination: International Trade Centre, some OECD functions
• Education: UNESCO partnerships on environmental education

The stated rationale was straightforward. White House factsheets argued American taxpayers had spent billions on these organizations "with little return, while they often criticize US policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars."

Break that down and you see three distinct arguments:

1. Financial: The US contributes disproportionately and gets poor value
2. Political: These bodies criticize American policy
3. Values: Their agendas contradict American interests

Each argument deserves scrutiny, and each reveals something about how the administration views America's role in the world.

The UNFCCC: Foundation of Global Climate Cooperation

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change wasn't invented in 2025 or 2015 or even 2005. It emerged from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, when climate change was barely a mainstream political issue. The UNFCCC created the basic architecture for how nations would cooperate on rising temperatures.

Think of it as the constitutional framework. Everything else that came after—the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, national commitments, carbon markets—operates within the UNFCCC structure.

What does the UNFCCC actually do? It provides the institutional mechanism for annual climate conferences (COPs), maintains the secretariat that coordinates negotiations, tracks national emissions reports, and ensures all signatory nations operate under shared rules. Without it, there's no agreed-upon table where countries sit to negotiate. There's no legal obligation for nations to report their emissions transparently. There's no mechanism to hold anyone accountable.

The UNFCCC currently has 198 signatories. Every country on Earth except one has chosen to participate. That one is now the United States.

Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, called the withdrawal a "colossal own goal" that would leave America "less secure and less prosperous." That language might sound dramatic until you think about what climate impacts actually do to economic security. Rising sea levels threaten $2 trillion in US coastal real estate. Agricultural disruption threatens food security. Extreme weather events cost the insurance industry hundreds of billions annually. When Stiell says the withdrawal makes the country "less secure," he's not speaking metaphorically.

The Paris Agreement: The Second Withdrawal

The Paris Agreement represents climate diplomacy at its most fragile yet most effective. Reached in 2015 after two decades of failed negotiations, it broke through because it offered flexibility. Each country could set its own emissions reduction targets (called Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs). No nation had targets imposed by others. That flexibility made participation possible.

The US agreed to reduce emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Under Biden, the country was tracking toward meeting that goal. Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement on his first day in office after Trump withdrew the US during his first term in 2017.

Now it's happening again. The Trump administration announced the second US withdrawal in early 2024 before taking office again in 2025. By January 2025, the administration was moving aggressively to make good on that promise.

What makes this particular withdrawal symbolically powerful is what didn't happen. After the first Trump withdrawal in 2017, did other countries follow suit? No. Not a single nation left. Instead, the remaining 194 countries deepened their commitment. China positioned itself as a climate leader. The EU accelerated its Green Deal. Even nations dependent on fossil fuels stuck with the agreement.

This time, experts predict similar behavior. No other major economy is threatening withdrawal. Instead, many are accelerating their own commitments precisely because they see American withdrawal as an opportunity to fill the leadership vacuum. China, already dominant in solar panel manufacturing, battery technology, and electric vehicle production, stands to gain significant market share as American companies retreat from climate-related industries.

The IPCC: Science Without a Superpower

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents something unique in global institutions. It's not a regulatory body. It has no enforcement power. What it does is synthesize climate science. Every five to seven years, the IPCC publishes comprehensive assessment reports that synthesize tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies into digestible policy documents. These reports have become the scientific backbone of climate negotiations.

When the IPCC says warming is happening, it's saying something that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree on. When it projects temperature increases under different emissions scenarios, it's translating complex models into policy-relevant information.

By withdrawing from IPCC participation, the US loses its seat at the table where the science is being synthesized. American climate scientists will still publish peer-reviewed research. That research will still inform IPCC assessments. But the US government's voice—its ability to raise questions, request clarifications, and shape how science gets communicated—disappears.

Former Vice President Al Gore called this withdrawal an attempt to "undermine climate science and sow distrust around the world." That's a political characterization, but it captures something real. When the world's largest economy opts out of the process of evaluating climate science, it sends a signal that the science is optional, political, not foundational to decision-making.

What's Actually at Stake Economically

Here's where the "America First" rationale gets complicated. The administration argues American taxpayers spend billions on these organizations with little return. The counterargument is that these organizations, and continued climate leadership, represent enormous economic opportunity.

The clean energy market globally was worth roughly $2 trillion in 2024. Solar manufacturing, wind installation, battery production, electric vehicles, grid modernization, carbon capture technology—these aren't environmental charity projects. They're industries. America's share of that market has been declining, particularly in manufacturing.

China now produces about 80% of the world's solar panels. It dominates battery manufacturing. It leads in electric vehicles. Why? Because while American climate policy remained uncertain and politicized, China invested heavily in these industries. Chinese companies received consistent government backing to build capacity, improve efficiency, and scale production.

By withdrawing from climate organizations and downplaying climate commitments, the US isn't saving money. It's signaling to investors that climate-related industries aren't a priority. That's bad economics if those industries are actually where future growth happens.

Fuel costs, supply chain resilience, and insurance expenses all factor into real business decisions. When extreme weather becomes more frequent and intense—which climate scientists project will continue—companies face higher costs. Hurricanes, floods, and droughts disrupt supply chains. Heat waves make cooling costs surge. Insurance premiums rise. These aren't theoretical future problems. They're happening now.

The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season was extraordinarily active. Hurricanes Helene and Milton caused hundreds of billions in damage. The Los Angeles wildfires in January 2025 burned over 10,000 acres and displaced over 150,000 people. These events are happening in a warming climate, and they have enormous economic consequences.

The Ideological Core: Sovereignty Versus Coordination

Underlying the withdrawal is a fundamental disagreement about how international institutions should work.

One perspective: Global challenges require global coordination. Climate change doesn't respect borders. Emissions from China or India affect air quality and weather patterns in America. Energy security depends on stable international markets. Disease spreads across continents. Democracy and human rights are universal values worth defending internationally. Under this view, international organizations—despite their flaws and inefficiencies—are necessary infrastructure.

The other perspective: International organizations constrain national sovereignty. They allow other countries to influence American policy. They impose obligations that benefit others at American expense. They're bureaucracies that waste money and meddle in things that should be domestic decisions. Under this view, the US should make its own decisions based on American interests, period.

These aren't easily reconciled positions. The Trump administration fundamentally believes America is better off going it alone. It's skeptical that international cooperation produces better outcomes than unilateral action.

But here's the tension: The US can't actually go it alone on climate change. Individual national action is necessary but insufficient. If the US cuts emissions 50% while China increases emissions 100%, the global concentration of CO2 still rises. And the US still experiences the climate impacts—sea level rise, extreme weather, ecosystem disruption—because it's physically part of Earth's climate system.

The question isn't whether climate change is real or whether it matters. The question is whether international coordination helps or hinders America's interests in addressing it.

The Timing: Post-Paris Dynamics

What's remarkable about this withdrawal is the timing relative to other countries' climate ambitions.

In 2024, climate negotiations have intensified rather than relaxed. Countries aren't stepping back from climate goals. Instead, they're getting more specific and aggressive. The EU has committed to climate neutrality by 2050. UK has a binding target to reach net-zero by 2050. China, despite being the world's largest emitter, has pledged to peak emissions before 2030. India, with 1.4 billion people and massive development needs, has committed to reducing emissions intensity while growing its economy.

These commitments represent political capital spent domestically to convince voters and industries that climate action matters. When the US withdraws from these frameworks, it doesn't invalidate other countries' commitments. Instead, it potentially strengthens the resolve of remaining countries, who see American withdrawal as proof that climate leadership is available for whoever wants to seize it.

Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner, said the American decision was "regrettable and unfortunate" but quickly pivoted to emphasizing that the Paris Agreement "underpins global climate action" and the remaining 194 nations would continue. That's not a defensive statement. It's a statement of intent. Europe's saying: We'll carry this forward.

Who Fills the Leadership Vacuum

With the US stepping back, other nations are stepping forward.

China is the most obvious beneficiary. The world's largest emitter is also the world's dominant manufacturer of clean technologies. As rich countries accelerate their climate investments and technology transitions, China's manufacturers and companies will capture enormous market share. Chinese companies are already leading in solar, batteries, and EVs. Withdrawing from the Paris framework doesn't change climate physics, it just changes who profits from the solution.

Europe is another player. The EU's Green Deal is already reshaping European industry. By maintaining commitment to climate goals while the US retreats, Europe positions itself as the stable, predictable partner for climate-focused investors. That matters for capital flows.

Developing countries, paradoxically, might benefit too. Climate finance—money developed countries commit to help developing nations build clean infrastructure—becomes more concentrated. With the US out, the EU and China become the primary sources. Developing nations can potentially negotiate better terms by playing them against each other.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, who served as Biden's climate envoy, called the withdrawal "a gift to China and a get-out-of-jail-free card to countries and polluters who want to avoid responsibility." That's harsh but reveals a real concern: Without US participation in climate governance, polluters and laggard nations have less pressure to accelerate their climate action.

The Pullback From Other International Bodies

The climate treaty withdrawal is significant, but it's part of a broader retreat from international engagement.

The administration also targeted:

• UNESCO: Historically, the US has had a complicated relationship with UNESCO, withdrawing and rejoining multiple times over decades of political disputes. The latest withdrawal signals deep skepticism about UN educational and cultural work.

• UN Population Fund: This organization provides reproductive health services and maternal healthcare in developing countries. The withdrawal reflects disagreement about reproductive policy, but it also means less US voice in global health governance.

• UN Human Rights Council: The US had already withdrawn from this body in 2018 over complaints that it was biased against Israel. The latest move confirms that bias concern remains.

• International Trade Centre: This organization helps developing countries participate in global trade. Its withdrawal signals reduced commitment to development and economic cooperation.

• International Renewable Energy Agency: This might be the most directly climate-relevant withdrawal after the UNFCCC and IPCC. It means the US won't participate in international renewable energy research coordination, standards setting, or deployment acceleration.

Together, these withdrawals paint a picture of a government retreating from most forms of international cooperation. The rationale—financial savings and sovereignty protection—applies across the board. But the cumulative effect is significant isolation.

The Financial Argument: Does the US Actually Save Money

Let's examine the core economic argument. Does the US actually save money by withdrawing?

The administration claims American contributions to these organizations represent "billions with little return." The factsheet didn't provide specific numbers, but estimates suggest the US contributes roughly $10-12 billion annually across all UN bodies and affiliated organizations. That's roughly 0.2% of the federal budget.

Is that a lot? In absolute terms, yes. In relative terms, it's tiny. The US federal budget is roughly

But the question of "return" is more complex than simple accounting. When the US contributes to the UNFCCC, it's not getting a product returned like a business transaction. It's getting participation in governance. It's shaping how global climate negotiations proceed. It's maintaining diplomatic relationships. It's ensuring American interests get represented when international environmental rules get written.

Withdraw from that system, and the US doesn't get a rebate check. Instead, rules get written without American input. Other countries write the environmental standards that will eventually affect American companies operating internationally. That's not a financial win. It's a strategic loss that might cost far more than the original contribution.

Consider emissions standards for shipping. Last year, the International Maritime Organization, which the Trump administration didn't target for withdrawal, introduced net-zero shipping standards. American shipping companies now have to meet those standards to operate internationally. If the US had participated in IMO negotiations, American industry would have had input into how those standards were designed. Now? They're adapting to rules they didn't help create.

The Climate Reality: Weather Doesn't Care About Policy

Here's the thing that makes climate withdrawal particularly complicated: The climate system doesn't care about political decisions.

The last three years have been the hottest on record. The warming trend continues. Atmospheric CO2 remains at 423 parts per million and rising. Ocean temperatures are elevated. Arctic sea ice is declining. Glaciers worldwide are melting. These aren't opinions or predictions. They're measurements.

When the Trump administration withdraws from the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, it doesn't make these physical processes stop. The US still experiences climate impacts. Sea levels still rise. Weather systems still intensify. Wildfires get more severe. Hurricanes get more intense. Droughts persist.

The Los Angeles wildfires in January 2025 burned over 10,000 acres. The Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, and others forced evacuations affecting over 150,000 people. Thousands of homes were destroyed. The economic damage exceeded $20 billion. Those fires happened in a climate that's warmer than it was 30 years ago. Climate change didn't cause those specific fires—weather does—but warmer, drier conditions made the fire season longer and more severe.

America experiences these impacts whether or not it participates in international climate governance. The question is whether American withdrawal makes those impacts worse or better.

The scientific consensus is clear: Global cooperation on emissions reduction limits future warming. Individual action is insufficient. Without coordination, countries free-ride on others' efforts. International institutions, imperfect as they are, help overcome that coordination problem.

What Happens to US Climate Policy Now

The withdrawal from international climate treaties doesn't automatically reverse US environmental laws. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and various EPA regulations remain in place. But the broader policy signal is clear: The Trump administration is skeptical of climate-focused regulations.

Early in the second term, the administration moved to:

• Streamline permitting for fossil fuel projects
• Roll back efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances
• Reduce funding for renewable energy research
• Delay implementation of methane regulations
• Challenge EPA authority over emissions standards

These domestic policy shifts don't require international treaty withdrawal. But they reinforce the message: Climate concerns are deprioritized.

For American businesses, this creates uncertainty. Companies that have invested in renewable energy infrastructure, electric vehicle production, and carbon capture technology now face a less supportive policy environment. That doesn't necessarily make those investments worthless—markets and consumers still drive demand for clean energy—but it removes policy tailwinds and might introduce policy headwinds.

Some red states have committed to renewable energy development anyway because the economics work. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions. That economic reality persists regardless of federal policy. But permitting gets harder, interconnection to the grid gets slower, and investment becomes riskier when federal support disappears.

The Diplomatic Fallout: Lost Soft Power

International relations isn't just about formal agreements. It's also about relationships, trust, and soft power.

When the US participates in international institutions, it gains influence. American diplomats sit in rooms where global rules get negotiated. American scientists contribute to international research. American values get represented in institutional cultures. That's not trivial.

Withdraw from those institutions, and you lose that influence. Other countries fill the seats. Their scientists become the institutional leaders. Their values shape the rules.

For developing countries dependent on international support for climate adaptation and development, US withdrawal is concerning. It signals the US won't be reliable long-term partner. That matters for building alliances. If you're a small island nation threatened by sea-level rise, you want climate finance from developed countries. You want technology transfer. You want partners committed to limiting warming. US withdrawal signals Americans aren't committed.

Sue Biniaz, former US climate negotiator, expressed hope the withdrawal would be temporary, noting there are "multiple future pathways to rejoining the key climate agreements." That's true—Biden rejoined after Trump's first withdrawal—but it also means US climate policy is now subject to four-year electoral cycles. That instability is itself damaging because it makes the US an unreliable partner.

Countries make long-term investments based on expectations about international partners. Unstable US commitment to climate cooperation makes those calculations riskier.

Looking Forward: The Role of Non-State Actors

Here's something worth understanding: The US government isn't the only American actor on climate.

State governments, particularly California, New York, and other progressive states, have maintained their own climate commitments. Major corporations have set net-zero targets. Investors have committed trillions to climate-related investments. Universities have divested from fossil fuels. Cities have pledged emissions reductions.

While the federal government withdraws from international climate governance, these non-state actors continue pursuing climate goals. That means American climate action continues, even if federal government leadership vanishes. Businesses still transition to clean energy. Cities still build clean transportation. Investors still fund green technology.

But there's a coordination problem. Without federal backing, these efforts are less coordinated. Different states pursue different standards. That's less efficient than unified national policy. And it means smaller entities have less leverage internationally. A state government has less influence on global negotiations than a federal government.

The Science Persists

One final point worth emphasizing: Withdrawing from climate organizations doesn't change the underlying science.

The IPCC's assessment that global warming is real, caused by human activity, and dangerous remains valid whether or not the US participates. Climate scientists globally will continue researching. The physics of greenhouse gases doesn't change based on political decisions. CO2 will continue accumulating in the atmosphere. Temperatures will continue rising. Unless emissions globally decrease substantially, the warming trend will continue.

So withdrawing from the UNFCCC, IPCC, and Paris Agreement doesn't make climate change go away. It just means the US won't participate in the global conversation about managing it.

Over the coming years, we'll see whether that proves strategically advantageous or disadvantageous. My sense is it's the latter. Climate change is happening. Global coordination on response is happening. The question facing the US is whether it shapes that global response or gets shaped by it.

What Happens to Climate Finance

One particularly significant casualty of US withdrawal is climate finance.

Developed countries committed under the Paris Agreement to mobilize $100 billion annually for developing countries to support climate mitigation and adaptation. The US was a major contributor to that fund. With withdrawal, that commitment is withdrawn.

For developing countries, particularly island nations and least-developed countries most vulnerable to climate impacts, that's devastating. They contributed almost nothing to the problem but suffer the most from climate change. Climate finance helps them build resilience, invest in clean infrastructure, and respond to immediate climate impacts like flooding.

Without US contributions, either other developed countries must increase their contributions (unlikely given political constraints in Europe), or climate finance falls short. That means developing countries have fewer resources to adapt. It also means less technology transfer, which means they have less capacity to build clean economies themselves.

This creates perverse dynamics. The US withdraws from agreements designed to help ensure global stability and development. That might lead to increased climate-driven migration, conflict over resources, and instability that ultimately affects American security. It's possible to construct arguments for why that's still in America's interest—maybe investment in border security is cheaper than development aid—but it's a risky bet.

The Possibility of Reversal

Here's an important caveat to all this analysis: US withdrawal isn't necessarily permanent.

Historically, the US has joined and exited international commitments multiple times. The US withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 over cost and bias concerns, then rejoined in 2003. The US withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017 and rejoined in 2021. The pattern suggests withdrawals are sometimes reversed.

Simon Stiell from the UNFCCC noted that "the doors remain open for the US to re-enter in the future, as it has in the past with the Paris Agreement." That's true. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement both include mechanisms for rejoining. It wouldn't be complicated administratively.

But rejoining would require political will. It would require a future administration deciding that international climate cooperation is worth the political capital to rejoin. Given that climate change has become deeply polarized in American politics, that's far from certain.

FAQ

What is the UNFCCC and why does it matter?

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is the foundational international treaty governing how nations cooperate on climate change. Established in 1992, it created the institutional framework for global climate negotiations, emissions tracking, and coordinated action. The UNFCCC matters because it provides the legal structure and governance mechanism for all subsequent climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement. Without it, there's no agreed-upon process for how countries negotiate, report emissions, or coordinate climate responses.

How did the US contribute to creating these climate institutions?

The US played a leading diplomatic role in negotiating both the UNFCCC in 1992 and the Paris Agreement in 2015. American negotiators shaped these agreements' structure, principles, and mechanisms. The US also contributed substantial funding to climate institutions and provided scientific expertise through researchers and government agencies. The irony of current withdrawal is that the institutions the US is now leaving are institutions the US actively helped build and shape.

What's the difference between the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement?

The UNFCCC is the overarching treaty framework established in 1992. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is a separate accord that operates within the UNFCCC framework. The Paris Agreement introduced the concept of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), where each country sets its own emissions reduction targets rather than having targets imposed internationally. The Paris Agreement also added more ambitious climate goals and stronger accountability mechanisms. Think of UNFCCC as the constitutional framework and Paris Agreement as a more specific, ambitious treaty operating within it.

How does US withdrawal affect American companies?

US withdrawal creates uncertainty for American businesses invested in clean energy industries. Companies lose policy support and face international competition in clean technology markets where the US is increasingly lagging. Simultaneously, American companies must still comply with emissions standards set in international bodies where the US now has no voice. Export-oriented sectors may face tariffs or restrictions if they don't meet international environmental standards. However, the economics of clean energy often favor these technologies regardless of policy, so markets may persist even without federal support.

What happens to developing countries that depend on US climate finance?

Developing nations, particularly island nations and least-developed countries most vulnerable to climate impacts, lose access to US contributions to climate finance. Since the US was a major contributor to international climate funds, withdrawal reduces available resources for adaptation and mitigation projects. This means these countries have fewer resources to invest in clean infrastructure, prepare for climate impacts, and transition away from fossil fuels. It effectively shifts more burden onto other developed countries or onto developing countries themselves.

Can the US rejoin the climate treaties later?

Yes. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement both include provisions allowing countries to rejoin after withdrawal. Rejoining would require political will from a future administration but wouldn't involve major legal complications. Historically, the US has repeatedly joined and exited international commitments. US withdrawal under Trump followed by rejoining under Biden demonstrates this pattern. Future rejoin-exit cycles are plausible depending on electoral politics and whether American policymakers continue prioritizing climate concerns.

What does this mean for global climate action going forward?

US withdrawal doesn't stop global climate action, but it reduces the pace and coordination of that action. The remaining 194 UNFCCC signatories continue their commitments. However, without American participation and leadership, global emissions reductions will likely be less ambitious than they would be with full US engagement. Other nations, particularly China and EU members, step into leadership roles. Ironically, this might accelerate certain clean technologies where other nations have advantages, particularly in manufacturing and deployment.

How does US withdrawal affect American security?

US withdrawal from climate institutions affects security through multiple pathways. Climate change drives migration, resource conflict, and instability in vulnerable regions. Reducing US influence over global responses means less ability to shape how other nations handle climate impacts. Additionally, without participation in climate governance institutions, the US has less voice in writing international environmental standards that American companies must eventually comply with. Long-term, climate instability and resource scarcity increase security challenges that withdrawal doesn't prevent but may exacerbate.

What about American climate scientists and their participation?

American climate scientists continue publishing peer-reviewed research regardless of government participation in climate institutions. Their research still informs international climate assessments. However, the US government loses its institutional seat at the table where that science gets synthesized and communicated. American scientists lose official representation in IPCC processes and other international climate bodies. This is more a loss of institutional voice and input than a loss of scientific participation.