U.S. Climate Exit Explained: Impact of the U.S. Climate Exit on Global Action

U.S. Climate Exit Latest News

• U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a memorandum withdrawing the United States from 66 international organisations, including key climate bodies such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
• The move marks a sharp retreat from multilateral cooperation, weakens global climate governance, and raises concerns about funding gaps, leadership vacuums, and reduced coordination on climate science and policy.

U.S. Exit from the FCCC: What It Means

• Climate Denial and Policy Shift – President Trump has repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax and is steering the U.S. away from global climate commitments, including withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
• Legal Basis for Withdrawal – An executive order issued in February 2025, directed a review of international commitments deemed contrary to U.S. interests. The exits from the FCCC and IPCC stem from this process.
• Loss of Role in Global Climate Framework – Leaving the FCCC removes the U.S. from the central structure governing multilateral climate diplomacy, including emissions reporting, transparency mechanisms, and collective accountability.
• Automatic Exit from the Paris Agreement – Under FCCC rules, withdrawal also applies to related protocols. This effectively confirms the U.S. exit from the Paris Agreement.
• Marginalisation at Climate Negotiations – The U.S. will no longer be a formal party in COP negotiations. While it may attend as an observer, it loses legal standing to shape rules on carbon markets, finance, and climate governance.

‹ ›

Impact on Climate Finance After U.S. Exit

• Reduced Influence Over Global Climate Funds – By leaving the FCCC, the U.S. loses its say in shaping climate finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility, which are overseen by the COP.
• Easier Withdrawal from Funding Commitments – Non-membership makes it politically simpler for U.S. administrations to justify withholding or cutting contributions to multilateral climate finance mechanisms.
• Higher Costs for U.S. Businesses – The exit signals policy uncertainty, increasing risk premiums for U.S. firms and investors that operate in a world moving toward stricter climate rules and regulations.
• Greater Trade and Investment Exposure – U.S. exporters may face tougher climate-linked trade measures abroad, such as carbon border taxes, with fewer diplomatic tools to negotiate exemptions.
• Weaker Bargaining Power in Linked Negotiations – As climate cooperation is increasingly tied to energy, critical minerals, and development finance, partners may hesitate to strike deals with the U.S. amid doubts about the durability of its commitments.

Role of the IPCC

• Assessing Climate Science – The IPCC reviews and synthesises global scientific research on climate change, its impacts, and possible response strategies, providing a common evidence base for policymakers worldwide.
• Shaping Global Climate Negotiations – Its reports serve as shared scientific references that underpin international climate talks, targets, and policy decisions.
• Impact of U.S. Withdrawal – If the U.S. exits the IPCC, its influence over the scientific framing of climate debates will weaken, as it may stop formally nominating experts to author teams.
• Reduced Institutional Representation – Without government nominations, the pipeline for U.S.-based scientists to serve as IPCC authors could narrow, despite the country’s strong climate research capacity.
• Continued, but Limited, Participation – U.S. scientists could still contribute as expert reviewers or be nominated through non-government observer organisations, but with less formal backing and visibility.

Global Repercussions of the U.S. Exit

• Erosion of Shared Responsibility – When a wealthy, high-emitting country withdraws from climate institutions, it weakens the norm that all major emitters must follow common rules, reducing trust in multilateral action.
• Hardening Positions of Developing Countries – Many poorer countries already feel rich nations under-deliver on promises. The U.S. exit may reinforce this belief, making them less willing to accept new obligations.
• Encouraging Climate Inaction Elsewhere – The move can give political cover to other hesitant governments to slow down, delay, or dilute their own climate commitments.
• Complicating Climate Finance Negotiations – As climate finance targets rise from $100 billion to far higher levels, U.S. disengagement undermines confidence in burden-sharing and collective funding efforts.
• Undermining New Funding Goals – With a $300 billion annual climate finance goal agreed for 2035, the absence of a major historical emitter weakens the credibility of global deals to mobilise these resources.

Source: TH