In the name of “national sovereignty” and his categorical rejection of climate policies considered “radical”, Trump says goodbye – in a presidential memorandum – toA Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Framework Convention on Climate Change signed in 1992 in Rio, and 66 other international organizations (including the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on climate change).
A fatal blow that comes after the exit from the Paris Agreement and the heavy absence of a US delegation at the climate talks of the last COP30 (and after having regularly derided climate science by calling it a “scam” and a “hoax”), at the exact moment in which countries are facing interconnected and unprecedented economic, environmental and climate crises.
President Trump is clear – says Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It is no longer acceptable to donate the blood, sweat and economic resources of the American people to these institutions, with little or nothing to show for it in return. Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological agendas that conflict with the sovereignty and economic strength of the United States.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, what is it
It is an international treaty that outlines the legal framework for international negotiations to address climate change, effectively forming the basis of international cooperation to address the climate crisis.
Adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it entered into force on March 21, 1994, after ratification by more than 50 countries (The United States Senate ratified the treaty in October 1992). The main objective is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that prevents interference with the climate system.
The convention places more responsibility on developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations, while having fewer responsibilities, must still participate in global efforts to address climate change.
What happens now
Because the UNFCCC treaty has been ratified by the Senate, it is unclear whether Trump can unilaterally rescind it, or whether a future president can rejoin the framework without a further Senate vote.
Meanwhile, Simon Stiell, UN climate chief and executive secretary of the UNFCCC, described the move as a “colossal own goal”:
While all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate cooperation and science can only harm the US economy, jobs and standard of living, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts rapidly worsen. It’s a colossal own goal that will leave the United States less safe and less prosperous.
Other organizations and agencies from which the United States will also exit include the IUCN, the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.
5 things we should expect
- Unprecedented diplomatic isolation: leaving the UNFCCC means excluding yourself from the main global climate table. The United States would lose negotiating weight on rules, financing, adaptation and energy transition, leaving room for the EU and China
- Direct attack on science: leaving the IPCC is equivalent to rejecting the international scientific consensus, weakening US credibility and paving the way for policies based on ideology, not data
- Domestic economic damage: As insurers and investors flee areas hit hardest by extreme events, this exacerbates risks to U.S. housing, agriculture and infrastructure
- Lost competitive advantage: abandoning organizations on renewables and climate cooperation means giving up technological leadership, investment and green jobs, favoring global competitors
- A dangerous precedent: questioning a treaty ratified by the Senate creates an institutional vacuum that could compromise US participation in climate governance for years, even with future presidents. And that makes a lot of sense, given the scale of US power.
And for us? The exit of the States from the UNFCCC and other organizations is not only a symbolic act, but is a clear and deliberate deep break with international cooperation, science and the protection of citizens. In practice, it will mean drastically slowing down global action against the climate crisis: without the involvement of the United States, one of the largest historical emitters of greenhouse gases, it will become more difficult to reduce emissions in a coordinated way and meet the objectives of containing global warming. This increases the probability of exceeding critical climate thresholds, with more heat waves, droughts, fires, floods and irreversible loss of ecosystems.
And the political signal is equally serious: it legitimizes the inaction of other countries and weakens international cooperation just as time is running out to avoid the worst scenarios.
