In a completely unsurprising redux of President Donald Trump’s first term, the new/old U.S. president has officially notified the United Nations of America’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, which went into effect in 2016, it takes a full year for withdrawal to become official. But Trump will almost certainly henceforth act as if the U.S. is no longer bound by the treaty, which has been adopted by nearly every other nation on Earth, in an effort to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
“I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris Climate Accord rip-off,” Trump told the crowd at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., before signing a list of executive orders. “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” he said. Trump has previously stated that he thinks it is unfair that less developed nations such as China are not required to peak their emissions for a number of years, while the U.S. is expected to continue decreasing its own.
This year, parties to the agreement are required to submit national climate action plans — or “nationally determined contributions” in the parlance of the treaty — to the United Nations, detailing how they’ll further reduce emissions and adapt to global warming. These updated plans are mandated every five years, though Trump failed to submit one in 2020. The Biden administration submitted a plan last month, in advance of Trump’s inauguration, which includes a goal of cutting emissions by 61% to 66% below 2005 levels by 2035. It’s safe to assume Trump will not abide by this. Once it leaves the Paris Agreement, the U.S. will also no longer have to submit yearly emissions reports or provide as much money to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
So what will the fallout be? After all, America is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind China. But logistically and legally, leaving the Paris Agreement is more symbolic than anything. Beyond the more nebulous — but very real — loss of international leadership on climate issues, there’s no tangible repercussions for exiting the agreement. Nor, as many party nations consistently demonstrate, any legal recourse for staying in while failing to meet targets or set sufficient goals.
As I reported in November, so long as the U.S. retains its membership in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. can still attend the annual UN climate conference, a.k.a. COP, where all negotiations and decisions related to the Paris Agreement happen. But for all Paris-related meetings (which comprise much of the conference), the U.S. would have to attend as an “observer” with no decision-making power, the same category as lobbyists.
That’s actually never happened before. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. technically could (and definitely did) continue to play a role in negotiations. The Paris Agreement stipulated that no nation could officially announce its exit for three years after implementation, and, because it still took a year for withdrawal to become official, for every COP during Trump 1.0, the U.S. remained a party to Paris. While Trump’s COP delegations were smaller and less politically prominent than either Obama’s or Biden’s, U.S. representatives continued to show up and advocate for domestic interests. Since COP30 will happen in mid-November of this year, COP31 in 2026 will be the first climate conference where the U.S. will truly learn what it’s like to sit on the sidelines.
Making a more drastic break with the United Nation’s overall climate efforts by leaving the UNFCCC, which convenes the annual climate conference, is theoretically also an option. But leaving the framework convention would likely be a much more complex and arduous process than leaving Paris. While Trump has yet to make a statement indicating his intentions in this regard, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 recommends it.
“We’re going to save over a trillion dollars by withdrawing from that treaty,” Trump told the crowd regarding the Paris Agreement, before returning to the Oval Office to sign a number of additional executive orders. As my colleague Jeva Lange explained, the math behind that figure comes from a study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting, which later released a statement saying that the administration “selectively used results” from its study, and that “NERA’s study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris Agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the signing of the executive order, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements."
