US Withdrawn from International Climate Treaties.

Last week, Donald Trump officially withdrew the USA and its funds from 66 International Organisations that are “contrary to the interests of the United States”. Including in these organisations are 31 United Nations entities and 35 non-UN organisations spanning climate change, energy, human rights, education, and economic development, referred to as “woke” initiatives by Trump. Among those organisations are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (which hosts the Climate COPs), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). These, including others, have been fundamental in providing scientific information, find global consensus on how to tackle climate change, and track global progress.

This news has sparked international outrage from heads of states, environmental groups, and citizens around the world. Amid increasing temperatures, worsening natural disasters, and growing demand for climate action, Trump has isolated the US within the fight against climate change. It has also decreased the capacity of these organisations to tackle global challenges by withdrawing critical funds and support fundamental for operations.

What does this entail for the global fight against the climate emergency?

Although this may seem catastrophic at first glance – and don’t get me wrong, this situation is not ideal, this will not destroy the progress underway. However, it will slow it down. The US is a global power due to its powerful military, strategic alliances, and significant economic strength which has allowed it to influence geopolitics for a long time. Therefore, it can be a powerful ally to have. After all, the US was the first industrialised country to sign and ratify the UNFCCC back in 1992. Therefore, the withdrawal of a country of this significance from such a treaty sends a clear signal that the climate emergency has been deprioritised. This may, in turn, provide political reasoning for other countries to slow their actions or scale back commitments – the Trump administration is therefore setting another dangerous precedent right in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela.

However, by withdrawing its funding and support, the US also forfeits its ability to meaningfully influence the UN and its affiliated bodies. Given that the current head of state has consistently dismissed the climate emergency as a “hoax”, this loss of influence could be viewed as beneficial. The withdrawal also doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone due to the prior withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the freezing of USAID and general disregard for international law. It also further isolates the administration, which has already lost the trust of most allies.

With that said however, the funding responsibility now falls to other countries to make up for the gap – around 22% of the UNFCCC’s budget – that the US is leaving behind.

Why should the US claim responsibility for the climate emergency?

The US is the biggest contributor to historical emissions accounting for 24% of global cumulative CO₂ emissions, followed by China which is responsible for 15% of those emissions. However, contrary to the US, China is the global leader in renewable energy development, tackling climate change head on while securing a spot in the future economy.

National Interest VS Global Interest

What Trump fails to see is that joining the global fight against the climate emergency is fundamental to the national interest of the US. After all, weather and climate disasters cost the US $115 billion dollars in damages and 276 lives in 2025 alone. Climate change is also threatening the US’s food security by disrupting production cycles, decreasing productivity and crop loss, and degrading soil and water. Climate change is also threatening the US’s GDP with a potential 17% loss in 2100, a 2-meter rise in sea level, stronger hurricanes, worsened droughts and heat waves, longer wildfire seasons, changes in precipitation patterns, and the list goes on and on.

If Trump adopted the perspective shared by most world leaders, he could position the US to save billions in damages, achieve energy independence, create new jobs, secure food systems, strengthen public health resilience, and reduce geopolitical instability.

Simply put, Trump’s decisions favour short-term gains he can readily claim credit for, rather than pursuing long-term prosperity that benefits society as a whole. Arguably, he’s acting against the interest of Americans in addition to letting down the rest of the world.

A Call-to-action for American Associations and Businesses

As Trump moves to make the US the only country in the world not party to the UNFCCC, responsibility for driving and accelerating the green transition increasingly falls to American States, cities, businesses, organisations, and consumers. The climate emergency will be impacting American citizens whether the US is a member of international organisations or not. Therefore, membership bodies such as trade associations and professional bodies are uniquely positioned to become the compass that their members need in lieu of the current head of state. They must be able to support mitigation and adaptation to navigate climate risks and opportunities.

If you are a membership body and you are unsure what this looks like for you, CAFA has guidance, 1:1 support, and resources that you can use for free. join here for access.