Haritha S Narayanan is a Ph.D. Research Scholar and Dr. TMA Pai Fellow at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Institution of Eminence), Manipal.
The inauguration of US President Donald Trump’s second term started with a series of executive orders, many of which were highlighted in his election campaigns. He signed these executive orders in his first week in office, targeting many issues such as health and medical research, immigration, oil drilling, and climate change. He also abolished federal diversity programs and gender-defining directives. In an unsurprising move, President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He had done this before when he became the President in 2016, which was reversed by his successor, President Joe Biden. One of the recurring slogans in the President’s inauguration speech was “drill baby drill” which was initially coined by Michael Steele in 2008, former chairperson of the Republican National Committee mainly aimed at reducing dependency on oil and gas imports. Similarly, as a part of the pro-fossil fuel agenda, Trump framed the decision as a “national energy emergency”. He doubled down on fossil fuel expansion while actively undermining renewable energy advancements. His executive order, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements”, emphasizes the administration’s preference for domestic concerns over international environmental responsibilities. The reaction has been swift and polarizing—while coal and oil industry leaders are celebrating, environmentalists, scientists, and international allies view this as a reckless step backwards in the fight against climate change.
President Trump called the Paris Climate Change Agreement, which has been in effect for ten years, a “rip-off”, which puts the US at a competitive disadvantage to China. Given his conviction that the climate problem is a “giant hoax”, he views such accords as not only pointless but also fundamentally unjust to the US. The administration’s resistance to international climate cooperation is further cemented by statements such as: “These agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people”.
The Paris Agreement is a bottom-up legally binding framework designed to prevent dangerous temperature increase and keep it to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels (and aspire to limit it to below 1.5°C). Rising temperatures have notably intensified extreme weather events that are already disrupting vulnerable communities and economies. By stepping away, the US, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, aligns itself with just three other countries – Yemen, Iran, and Libya – that have signed but not ratified the Paris Agreement. In 2021, the previous Biden administration committed to elevate US external climate finance to more than US$ 11.4 billion annually by 2024. It had also committed US$ 3 billion annually to the Green Climate Fund, although only US$1 billion was provided prior to President Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement. This decision not only undermines collective climate action but also withdraws essential financial support from poorer countries facing the most severe climate-related threats. This also leads to repercussions for Conference of the Parties (COP29) which saw developing nations demand a unified climate finance target where the developed nations agreed to give US$ 300 billion a year to developing nations by 2035.
Significantly, prominent US oil and gas corporations such as Chevron, Exxon and Occidental, generally supportive of Trump’s policies, have voiced apprehension that withdrawing from the Paris Agreement may impede their international clean energy investments and generate regulatory ambiguities. Industry executives underscore the significance of engaging in global climate deliberations to adeptly manage the energy transitions. The administration has taken steps to halt new wind farm approvals and roll back existing climate policies, including targets for electric vehicles. These decisions are expected to face legal pushback and have drawn criticism from environmental groups, industry stakeholders and renewable energy advocates for potentially worsening environmental damages, raising energy costs, and weakening resilience to extreme weather events. Another example is of the Los Angeles wildfires stemming from climate change-driven heat, drought, and strong Santa Ana winds, worsened by urban expansion into fire-prone areas. Human factors like power line sparks and arson also contribute to major fires, including the Woolsey (2018) and Bobcat (2020) fires. Increasing intensity strains firefighting resources, insurance, and policy responses. The response has been intense both at home and abroad, with growing concerns over setbacks in climate action, human rights, and public health. As debates continue and legal challenges unfold, the future direction of US climate and environmental policy remains uncertain.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, along with the earlier Kyoto Protocol, place financial obligations on developed countries, including the US, requiring them to support developing and least developed countries in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts through funding, technology transfer, and capacity building. Nevertheless, President Trump has not declared a withdrawal from the foundational UNFCCC treaty, adopted by the US Senate in 1992, which established the basis for the negotiation and signing of the Paris Agreement. These promises are explicitly addressed in the Executive Order, which states that the US will immediately stop or retract any alleged financial commitment it may have made under the UNFCCC. The US International Climate Finance Plan during the Biden administration, established to allocate bilateral and multilateral funds to assist developing countries in tackling climate issues, was also revoked by President Trump.
In such a critical decade, these kinds of policy reversals show inconsistent policy commitments towards climate change. The impact of the US exit from the Paris Agreement on international climate change negotiations and climate action implementation may affect other countries, but the consequences remain ambiguous. A similar attempt to withdraw from the Paris Agreement during the first Trump administration in 2017 materialized only in 2020 after it formally served a notice of the withdrawal to the UN in 2019. Following this, in 2021, the US rejoined the Paris Agreement under the Joe Biden administration. Despite the federal government’s position back in 2017, thirty US states and several localities, such as Washington, California and New York, formed the United States Climate Alliance, committed to upholding the goals of the Paris Agreement within their states. As of 2024, there are 24 member states and the victory of Trump brought the alliance back in the spotlight. Important signatories to the Paris Agreement, such as France, Germany, and Italy, responded to the US withdrawal by reaffirming their commitment to enhancing climate action, indicating a wider international backlash against the decision.
The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is expected to have significant and far-reaching implications for global climate governance specifically and multilateralism in general. In September 2010, the World Intellectual Property Organization published a green inventory for International Patent Classification, which lists out UNFCCC’s environmentally sound technological patent across seven categories, including nuclear power, waste management, energy conservation, transportation, agriculture, forestry, law, and renewables production. The US has a strong advantage in climate change research but its progress in low-carbon technology development has been comparatively limited, even during the Obama administration. In contrast, China has demonstrated significant advancements, largely driven by strong governmental commitment to climate action. This highlights the need for concern about the future of low-carbon technology development due to Trump’s anti-climate policies weakening the US’ power in the global picture as the other stakeholders will still make active efforts to implement its policies and fulfil their commitments. Similarly. Trump exhibits a general aversion to multilateralism, and mostly, he prioritizes US interests over global cooperation, leading to a more fragmented global order. During his previous presidency, US representatives in the G7 and G20 aimed to undermine fundamental principles and policies that have supported international economic cooperation for decades, such as the role of International Monetary Fund as a global safety net, and the obligation of the developed world to provide financial aid to the poorest nations. Critiques say this could create a need for an alternative for G7 where the traditional allies of the US must find ways to cooperate on global policy issues, even in the absence of US engagement. Trump’s victory casts uncertainty over the future of the G20, as he prioritizes transactional, bilateral relationships over consensus-driven engagement in international organizations.
Rejecting the Paris Agreement would not shield Americans from the effects of climate change, but it would give China and the European Union (EU) a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector. The EU’s Green Deal, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050, faces challenges in its relationship with the US, especially following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This divergence has led to concerns about economic competitiveness and regulatory alignment between the two regions. European businesses fear Trump’s deregulation could weaken EU environmental standards. For instance, ExxonMobil’s Europe president criticized EU rules for limiting investments, while the European Round Table for Industry flagged regulatory complexity, prompting calls for policy reassessment. Despite these pressures, EU leaders, including EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement, emphasizing its importance as a global framework for combating climate change. She described the agreement as the “best hope for all humanity”, underscoring the EU’s dedication to its climate objectives. The US withdrawal has also led the EU to consider mechanisms like carbon border adjustments to prevent carbon leakage and ensure fair competition. Such measures could impose tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent environmental policies, potentially affecting US exporters. This approach aims to uphold the EU’s environmental standards while addressing concerns about global competitiveness.
In the previous US administration, President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017 created a leadership void in global climate governance. China seized this opportunity to position itself as a leader in climate action. Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and pledged additional funding to support climate initiatives in developing countries. Today, with the US once again withdrawing from the Paris Agreement under President Trump, China has reiterated its dedication to international climate commitments. China’s substantial investments in renewable energy further bolster its leadership role. In 2024, China installed a record 357 gigawatts of wind and solar power, surpassing its renewable energy targets ahead of schedule. For India, this evolving landscape presents both challenges and opportunities. The US withdrawal may lead to reduced international climate funding and support, potentially impacting India’s climate initiatives. However, it also opens avenues for India to strengthen collaborations with other committed nations, particularly the EU and China. Enhanced cooperation with the EU could involve increased investments in green technology and shared research initiatives. Similarly, partnering with China, which has advanced capabilities in renewable energy technologies, could provide India access to affordable and efficient solutions for its energy transition. By proactively engaging with these partners, India can not only mitigate the impacts of the US withdrawal but also position itself as a significant contributor to global climate action.
The US continues to be the largest and most powerful economy in the world despite accounting for 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, trust is called into doubt when a major nation, such as the US, pulls out of a global solution to a global issue. While many Americans feel that the US should be at the forefront of the fight against climate change and hence, believe that Trump made the incorrect choice, some are still hopeful about his choice, hoping to see new leadership emerge.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are personal.
