The United States, the world’s largest economy, plays a crucial role in shaping global policies — whether in trade, defence, or climate action. President Donald Trump’s second term is marked by controversial environmental and foreign policy decisions, particularly his stance on climate agreements and multilateral commitments. His withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is being framed as a strategic move towards economic pragmatism and a fulfilment of electoral promises. The Trump administration has also distanced itself from major global initiatives such as the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
The rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exemplify the ‘Tragedy of the Global Commons,’ where individual actors seek private benefits while disregarding social costs. Given that climate change is a global issue, the actions of a developed nation like the US have far-reaching consequences. The key question remains: Is Trump truly prioritising American interests, or is his withdrawal a setback when urgent climate action and multilateral cooperation are needed most?
READ I Climate change: India’s blue economy stares at uncertain future
Trump vs The Paris Agreement
Signed in 2015 by 196 countries, the Paris Agreement was a landmark achievement in international climate diplomacy, aiming to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Under President Obama, the US committed to the agreement in 2016, pledging $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to support developing nations in their transition to renewable energy.
The divergence began in June 2017, when Trump announced the US withdrawal from the agreement, citing its adverse impact on the economy. He argued that compliance would result in a $3 trillion GDP loss and the elimination of 6.5 million jobs in coal and manufacturing. According to Trump, the agreement put the US at a “permanent disadvantage” and that American energy firms should focus on market competitiveness rather than being constrained by international climate commitments.
Reaffirming this stance, Trump signed Executive Order 14162 on his first day back in office in January 2025, formally withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement and terminating all financial obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). His supporters argue that economic sacrifice in the name of climate action is unsustainable and that market-driven solutions should lead the energy transition. Trump has also accused countries like China of misreporting environmental data to gain an unfair advantage. This decision came despite 2024 being recorded as the hottest year in history, with devastating wildfires in California and catastrophic hurricanes along the US East Coast.
Global fallout of US withdrawal
Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Agreement has sent shockwaves through the international community. Environmental experts have described it as a significant setback in the global fight against climate change. As the world’s second-largest polluter and the highest cumulative emitter since the 19th century, the US plays a pivotal role in shaping climate action. Its withdrawal weakens global momentum to curb emissions and raises concerns that other nations may follow suit.
This is not the first time the US has stepped away from global climate commitments under a Republican administration. In 2001, President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, stating that the “American lifestyle is non-negotiable.” Now, under Trump, a further revision of the social cost of carbon is anticipated, a metric that heavily influences climate policy decisions. The Obama administration set the cost at $43 per tonne with a 3% discount rate, Biden reduced the discount rate to 2%, but Trump’s previous presidency had used a 7% rate, estimating the cost at just $4 per tonne. Such calculations drastically alter policy priorities and can justify reduced climate action.
For poorer nations, Trump’s move presents heightened vulnerabilities. The lack of US contributions to the Green Climate Fund will hinder climate mitigation efforts and slow the transition to renewable energy in developing countries. Small island nations and low-income economies will face the brunt of rising sea levels, food insecurity, and extreme weather events.
America backs fossil fuels
Domestically, Trump’s America First agenda is a boon for the US oil and gas industry. His administration has aggressively promoted fossil fuel expansion, issuing executive orders to boost extraction, rolling back offshore drilling restrictions, and pausing wind power development projects. Additionally, he has vowed to end the electric vehicle mandate, arguing that such regulations harm American industries.
However, these policies stand in stark contrast to global market trends, which increasingly favour renewable energy. While Trump’s push for fossil fuel dominance may temporarily boost the industry, it risks leading to an oversupply at a time when global energy transitions are accelerating. Despite short-term economic gains, this approach could leave the US lagging behind in the clean energy revolution.
The climate leadership void
Climate change knows no borders — it affects every nation. Collective action is crucial to mitigate its impact. On one side, the European Union is implementing mechanisms like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to penalise carbon-intensive imports and prevent countries from lowering environmental standards for economic advantage. On the other, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement weakens global climate governance and emboldens nations that wish to free-ride on the efforts of others.
The key paradox in climate policy lies in balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility. While the Paris Agreement brought most nations to the table and set realistic emission reduction targets, the withdrawal of a major player like the US could weaken collective ambition. Some countries may now reconsider their decarbonisation strategies or delay introducing carbon pricing mechanisms, citing their ‘latecomer’ status to industrialisation.
Beyond climate action, the Trump administration has also taken an isolationist stance on global cooperation. US representative Edward Heartney on Tuesday announced at the UN General Assembly that the United States would no longer reaffirm the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its goals (SDGs). The US also voted against multiple UN resolutions promoting global peace, education for democracy, and sustainable development, arguing that such initiatives conflict with its national interests. This shift signals a broader retreat from multilateral commitments and could impact climate cooperation efforts.
This shift also presents an opportunity for countries like China, which has heavily invested in green technologies, to step up and fill the leadership vacuum. As the US retreats from global agreements, other nations may shape the future of sustainability and international cooperation. Whether the world moves forward with or without US participation, one fact remains clear — climate action and global engagement cannot wait. The race toward a low-carbon and cooperative future must continue, with or without America.
Dr Tamali Chakraborty teaches at the Indian Institute of Management Visakhapatnam. Dr Pleasa Serin Abraham teaches at Shiv Nadar University Chennai. Subhajoy Mahanta is a graduate from NIT Durgapur. Views expressed are personal.