Experts Warn U.S. Exit From U.N. Climate Treaty Cedes Ground to Rivals

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (TodayViralUSA) – President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of 66 international organizations, among them the treaty that underpins global climate negotiations, drew sharp criticism from climate officials and policy experts on Thursday. Many of them said the move would hurt American interests more than it would hurt the bodies being abandoned.

The presidential memorandum, signed on Wednesday, tells federal agencies to stop participating in and funding 31 United Nations entities and 35 organizations outside the U.N. system. The White House said the groups were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”

A treaty with deep U.S. roots

The most consequential item on the list is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Senate ratified the convention in October 1992, and it is the legal basis for the annual climate summits where nations negotiate emissions targets, including the 2015 Paris Agreement. The administration had already begun withdrawing from the Paris accord. Leaving the parent convention goes further, because it takes Washington out of the negotiating framework altogether.

The list also includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body that assesses climate research for governments, along with U.N. Women and the U.N. Population Fund.

Simon Stiell, the UNFCCC’s executive secretary, called the withdrawal a “colossal own goal.” He argued that the U.S. would be giving up influence over the rules of a global energy transition already underway.

Analysts point to strategic costs

Several U.S. policy experts said the decision would not stop international climate cooperation and would mainly reduce Washington’s ability to shape it.

Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator and former White House national climate adviser, described the move as “shortsighted, embarrassing and foolish.”

Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called it an “unforced error” and “self-defeating.” He warned that it would hand ground to China as countries compete for the markets and supply chains of clean-energy industries.

That argument has become common among analysts who follow climate diplomacy. In their view, clean-energy technology is now largely an economic and industrial contest. When the U.S. steps back from multilateral forums, other governments get more say over standards, finance arrangements and trade rules that affect American companies.

The administration’s case

The White House framed the withdrawals as part of a broader review of international commitments. It argued that many of the organizations spend U.S. taxpayer money without delivering enough benefit to Americans, or that they pursue agendas at odds with administration policy. The memorandum orders agencies to wind down participation as soon as practicable. For U.N. bodies, that means stopping funding and engagement to the extent the law allows.

Open legal questions

Legal scholars have long debated whether a president can withdraw from a Senate-ratified treaty without congressional approval. The Constitution sets out how treaties are made but does not say how they are ended. That ambiguity could lead to court challenges, though past disputes over treaty withdrawal have mostly been settled politically rather than by the courts.

The practical effect may show up first at the next round of U.N. climate talks. American negotiators have historically played a central role there, both in brokering compromises among large emitters and in pushing for transparency rules on how countries report emissions.

For now, experts broadly agree on one point: the global process will continue. What remains uncertain is how much influence the world’s largest economy, and its second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will keep over where that process goes.