Trump withdraws US from key climate treaty and dozens of other groups

Nearly half of the 66 affected bodies are directly related to the United Nations, highlighting a deliberate strategy to disengage from global governance structures. Among the most prominent is the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundational international treaty that underpins all global initiatives to address rising temperatures and climate change. This withdrawal, though technically requiring a year to finalize, formalizes the US’s diminished participation in UN climate forums, which had effectively ceased long ago. The UNFCCC is the parent treaty to the Paris Agreement, providing the architecture for international climate negotiations and setting the stage for annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) where nations convene to strengthen climate action.

Beyond climate, the memorandum targets a broad spectrum of organizations, encompassing groups dedicated to development, gender equality, and conflict resolution. These areas have frequently been dismissed by the Trump administration as advancing "globalist" or "woke" agendas, perceived as contrary to US priorities. The White House justified the decision by stating these entities "no longer serve American interests" and instead promote "ineffective or hostile agendas."

The memorandum, signed on a Wednesday, was presented as a measure to curb "a waste of taxpayer dollars." A statement accompanying the announcement explicitly articulated the administration’s rationale: "These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities." It further asserted that many of the organizations championed "radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength." This rhetoric underscores a deep-seated suspicion within the administration of international cooperation that it views as encroaching upon national autonomy and economic growth.

In addition to the UNFCCC, the US has also formally withdrawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC stands as the world’s leading authority on climate science, meticulously synthesizing and publishing the most respected reports on the science of global warming, its impacts, and potential response strategies. Its assessments are considered the gold standard, providing the scientific basis for international climate policy.

Sources within the IPCC conveyed to the BBC profound concerns regarding the potential repercussions of the Trump administration’s withdrawal on US scientists. American researchers play an indispensable role in producing the body’s comprehensive assessments, contributing significantly to its scientific rigor and credibility. The White House has already taken steps to restrict participation, blocking US scientists from attending a critical meeting in China. Any further restrictions on travel or engagement of US researchers could severely impede the progress and significantly delay the release of the next cycle of IPCC reports, including its crucial mitigation report. This particular document is vital, as it offers governments essential guidance on effective strategies to tackle climate change, influencing national policies and international collaboration. Such delays could have far-reaching consequences for global climate action, depriving policymakers of timely, authoritative scientific advice.

The list of non-UN organizations affected by this latest wave of withdrawals is also extensive, impacting areas from clean energy to democratic governance and international security. These include the International Solar Alliance (ISA), a treaty-based intergovernmental organization focused on the deployment of solar energy, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), which supports sustainable democracy worldwide, and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum (GCTF), a platform for counter-terrorism cooperation. The US’s departure from these diverse bodies signals a broader disengagement from various forms of international problem-solving, irrespective of their specific focus.

This move is consistent with President Trump’s established pattern of skepticism towards multilateralism. He has consistently expressed disdain for numerous international organizations, often stripping them of funds or withdrawing altogether. His administration has repeatedly rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made activities are the primary driver of climate change, famously labeling it a "hoax." This ideological stance has underpinned a series of actions aimed at dismantling environmental regulations domestically and weakening international climate commitments.

The current withdrawals build upon a history of similar actions by the Trump presidency. Last year, the US controversially withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time, a landmark global accord aimed at limiting global warming. The administration also declined to send a delegation to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, further isolating the US from critical climate discussions. Prior to these actions, the US had already pulled out of the World Health Organization (WHO) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN’s cultural agency, UNESCO, demonstrating a systematic retreat from multilateral platforms.

The latest decision has drawn sharp criticism from international leaders, who warn of its detrimental effects on global cooperation. European leaders, in particular, have voiced strong objections. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra described the UNFCCC as the bedrock of global climate action, characterizing the US retreat as "regrettable and unfortunate." Similarly, Teresa Ribera, the EU’s clean transition vice-president, lambasted the administration, stating it showed "little concern for the environment, health or human suffering." These reactions reflect a deep concern that US disengagement undermines collective efforts to address pressing global challenges, fostering fragmentation at a time when unified action is most needed.

In the United States, advocacy groups have also condemned the move. Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US-based non-profit advocacy group, described the step as a "new low." Speaking to news agency AFP, Cleetus characterized the administration as "authoritarian" and "anti-science," asserting that it was determined to sacrifice people’s wellbeing and destabilize global cooperation for short-sighted political gains. Such statements highlight the domestic opposition to the administration’s approach to international relations and climate policy.

The legal ramifications of these withdrawals remain somewhat ambiguous. While the US Constitution grants presidents the authority to join treaties "provided two thirds of Senators present concur," it does not explicitly outline the process for withdrawing from such agreements. This constitutional silence creates uncertainty regarding whether these withdrawals could be challenged in US courts, as many campaigners are now urging. Furthermore, it raises questions about the ease with which a future president might reverse Trump’s decision and re-engage with these international bodies. The lack of a clear constitutional pathway for re-entry suggests that a simple executive order might not suffice, potentially necessitating complex diplomatic and legislative efforts to rejoin. This ambiguity could lead to protracted legal battles and further complicate the US’s international standing and ability to reassert leadership on global issues in the future. The long-term impact on US diplomatic credibility and influence in critical international forums is likely to be significant and enduring.