The Paris Agreement Crisis

Implications of Trump’s Exit from the Paris Agreement

Written By: Habiba Malik

Introduction

The Paris Agreement is an international climate change agreement adopted by nations that are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It provides a legally binding framework for an internationally coordinated effort to tackle climate change.

The Paris Agreement contains:

A collective goal to hold global warming well below 2°C, with efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
An aim for greenhouse gas emissions to peak as soon as possible and to achieve net-zero emissions in the second half of this century.
A requirement for mitigation measures of individual countries to be expressed in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
A process that demands a revision of NDCs at least every five years, representing progression beyond the previous NDCs.
A Global Stocktake from 2023 and every five years thereafter to review progress.
Encouragement for parties to implement existing frameworks of forestation, including through the provision of results-based payments.
A global goal of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, reducing vulnerability to climate change, and providing enhanced support for adaptation.
A decision to adopt the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, while noting that the agreement does not involve or provide a basis for liability or compensation.
A commitment to a collective goal of providing USD 100 billion per year up to 2025, and beyond 2025 with USD 100 billion as a floor. Developing countries are encouraged to provide voluntary support. Public funds will play a significant role in finance, and developed countries must report twice a year on levels of support provided.
A non-punitive compliance mechanism that is expert-based and facilitative in nature.

Unique Features of the Agreement

The Paris Agreement is the first major multilateral climate deal of the twenty-first century. It allowed the world to move beyond the “global warming gridlock” by creating a flexible model of climate cooperation.

This agreement acknowledges the importance of domestic policies on climate change and relies on states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on a voluntary basis with self-established limitations. This reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The negotiators opted for a “pledge and review” model for climate negotiations. Under this model, countries establish reduction commitments at the national level, but these commitments are reviewed on the international stage.

This process works through “naming and shaming.” Countries that fail to live up to their commitments, or those that withdraw from the agreement, do not face fines or legal penalties. However, they do face international criticism and reputational damage.

The agreement also marked a renowned role of the United States in the multilateral climate regime, as the Obama administration was actively engaged in the negotiation process.

Environmental Movement in the United States of America

The climate change policies of American presidents show the different perceptions of the two major political parties toward climate change. One administration may treat climate change as an existential crisis, while another may frame it as a “hoax” promoted by foreign and domestic opponents.

The Clinton-Gore administration encouraged new environmentally friendly technologies and implemented strict environmental policies. The administration was also involved in negotiations regarding the Kyoto Protocol. However, climate change was not a strong domestic priority because Republicans dominated Congress.

In the following years, the administration of President George W. Bush considered climate change a low priority. He withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and announced that the protocol was dead, citing concerns about the validity of climate science and the unequal obligations between developed and developing countries.

The absence of the United States created a diplomatic stalemate and blocked global progress. President Barack Obama changed this narrative and brought a new face to U.S. climate diplomacy.

After taking office, President Obama moved quickly to reverse Bush-era policies that had blocked action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Obama administration, the United States signed the Paris Agreement and took global leadership in climate action.

From 2009 to 2016, the United States was explicit in projecting itself as a climate leader in the multilateral process.

Environmentalists generally praised President Obama’s Climate Action Plan as a step in the right direction. However, they also noted that continued presidential leadership was required to turn the plan’s good intentions into concrete policy.

During the Barack Obama administration, the United States was the main actor campaigning for the importance of climate change at the global level.

The Ratification in the United States

The U.S. delegation involved in negotiations on the climate change deal under the Obama administration faced the challenge of bypassing the deadlock within the Senate, where Republicans held a majority.

Treaties can also be ratified by the President acting alone in the case of presidential executive agreements. However, a treaty that provides emission reduction targets and concrete financial commitments could not easily be classified as an executive agreement.

This is one reason why the Paris Agreement was not labelled as a “protocol.” The aim was to avoid the same stalemate faced by the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by a Democratic administration but never ratified by a Republican-controlled Senate.

Using his executive power, President Barack Obama signed the Paris Agreement on 29 August 2016 without the consent of Congress, side-stepping an uncooperative Senate.

Tackling Climate Change in the Obama Governance

President Obama announced a comprehensive approach to slow the effects of climate change through his Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Both plans concentrated on reducing emissions from power industries and transportation, improving renewable energy, and progressing toward emissions reduction.

The Climate Action Plan, established by executive presidential order in 2013, covered several key areas:

Increasing efficiency in appliances, federal buildings, and other sectors.
Doubling energy productivity by 2030 compared to 2010 levels.
Reducing methane emissions from oil and gas production by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Doubling electricity generation from solar, wind, and geothermal sources by 2020.

The Clean Power Plan, proposed in 2014 and formally announced in 2015, introduced emissions reduction from the power sector by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. It set targets for each state while allowing states some flexibility in deciding how to achieve them.

Obama’s plan also pledged that the United States would lead international efforts to address global climate change. It sought to combine national efforts with international action to reduce emissions and advance climate negotiations.

Two promising components of the plan included ending support for public financing of new coal plants overseas and eliminating U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies in the fiscal year 2014 budget.

President Obama also introduced “Mission Innovation,” which showed dedication to climate action by allocating around USD 30 billion over five years for research and development in clean energy.

The Obama administration promised USD 3 billion to help the Green Climate Fund (GCF), one of the important features of the Paris Agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions and strengthening developing countries.

Additionally, the Obama administration mobilized billions of dollars for investments in clean energy projects in developing countries. A major focus of U.S. efforts internationally was to encourage a global transition away from coal and toward natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to help countries move toward cleaner energy sources.

Trump’s America First Policy and Its Deviation from Obama’s Foreign Policy

Trump’s emphasis on “America First” deviated significantly from Obama’s foreign policy philosophy.

Trump’s decision was driven by domestic U.S. politics and his personal preferences rather than the actual burden imposed on the United States by the Paris Agreement. Trump held strong opposition to many of Obama’s policies and chose to reverse most of them after taking office, including U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, which was one of Obama’s strongest political legacies.

Furthermore, Trump remained skeptical about climate change and refused to recognize the fundamental principle of shared but differentiated responsibilities.

His attitude toward climate change was clear: it was not a priority of U.S. foreign policy, and domestic environmental policy should not burden the U.S. economy.

He wanted to eliminate what he considered “unnecessary restrictions” on major energy sources such as coal, onshore oil, offshore oil, and gas. In his view, the reduction of CO₂ emissions should not come at the cost of domestic industry.

This approach led to his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Due to this policy, the United States became a “rogue” state in the global scenario of environmental protection.

The Free-Riding Strategy of President Trump

The rollback of the Trump administration on climate change extended not only to the international level but also to the domestic level.

The backsliding involved undoing rules on carbon dioxide emission reductions from power plants and weakening efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances.

The withdrawal of the Climate Action Plan, the repeal process of the Clean Power Plan, new leases for oil drilling, and the executive order on energy independence were some of the major developments from 2017 to 2020.

According to the Climate Deregulation Tracker of Columbia University, 131 actions toward federal climate deregulation took place after Trump took office.

Some of the most important actions from 2017 to 2020 included:

Rolling back motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate fuel economy standards.
Revoking states’ authority to set vehicle emissions standards that are more climate-protective than federal requirements.
Increasing the CO₂ emission standard for new coal-fired power plants.
Weakening greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles.
Deciding not to proceed with the development of methane emission guidelines for existing oil and gas sources.
Issuing an executive order allowing the use of coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources for energy production.
Issuing an executive order on implementing an America First Offshore Energy Strategy for expanding offshore drilling.
Issuing an executive order to review or rewrite the Clean Power Plan.

The Twofold Content of Trump’s Statement on the Paris Climate Accord

President Trump said that the Paris Agreement was against U.S. national interests, calling it “unfair” to the United States. He announced that the United States would cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord.

He added that his decision included ending the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contribution and the Green Climate Fund, which he claimed was costing the United States “a vast fortune.”

He also referred to the “lack of binding obligations” on other states, particularly China and India. This reflected a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Paris Agreement.

However, Trump left the door open to possible renegotiation of the agreement on more favorable terms. He stated that the United States was getting out but would start negotiating to see if a fairer deal could be made.

European leaders quickly responded that there was no possibility of renegotiation. The UNFCCC secretariat also correctly pointed out that a single country cannot decide on a renegotiation of the agreement.

A notable comment came from John Kerry, former Secretary of State under Obama, who said that Trump had made the United States an environmental pariah in the world and that the decision may be one of the most self-defeating actions in American history.

Legality of the Withdrawal Attempt of the Trump Administration

With his statement in June 2017, the Trump administration opted for two approaches at the same time: withdrawal and breach.

The content of Trump’s statement was a clear violation of the customary principle of international law known as “pacta sunt servanda,” which provides that a treaty is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

This principle is reflected in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A state party to a treaty is obliged to respect its international obligations, even if it decides to withdraw, until the completion of the exit process.

Trump’s withdrawal attempt was initially unsuccessful because the Paris Agreement states that a formal notice of withdrawal can only be requested three years after the date of ratification. After that, the state must serve an additional one-year waiting period before the withdrawal can officially take effect.

Trump announced his intent to withdraw in 2017, formally filed for withdrawal in 2019, and finalized the exit in 2020, just one day after the U.S. presidential election that resulted in his defeat.

Officially, the U.S. absence from the Paris Agreement was brief — less than four months — because President Joe Biden promptly rejoined the accord when he took office in early 2021.

Reaction from the Local and International Community

When the first Trump administration attempted withdrawal in 2017, many U.S. state and municipal governments disapproved of the measure.

As a result, U.S. state governments that emphasized climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as California, continued to implement regulatory programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Around thirty U.S. states and many cities committed to upholding the objectives of the Paris Agreement despite the federal government’s withdrawal attempt.

Many companies also reacted by announcing their own intentions to reduce emissions despite Trump’s action. The group “We’re Still In” condemned Trump’s decision and stated that it undermined the fight against climate change and damaged the world’s ability to avoid the effects of climate change.

The list of signatories included technology giants such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, along with hundreds of smaller firms.

Internationally, in reaction to the United States’ withdrawal attempt in 2017, several parties to the Paris Agreement, including France, Germany, and Italy, indicated that they would increase their efforts to address climate change.

Trump’s Announcement to Withdraw Again: A Return to Isolationism

A few hours after taking office at the White House, President Trump signed an executive order on 20 January 2025 to begin the process of withdrawing the United States from what he called the “unjust and unilateral Paris Climate Agreement fraud.”

The executive order on Paris Agreement withdrawal was titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements.”

In addition to starting the withdrawal process for the United States, the executive order sought to limit U.S. financial contributions to other countries. It stated that the United States should immediately cease or revoke any financial commitment made under the UNFCCC.

President Trump’s announcement of his intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement also reflected his broader initiative to “Make America affordable and energy dominant again.” This included reviewing all regulations that imposed what he considered undue burdens on energy production and use.

Trump’s Reversal of Biden-Era Policies

Trump declared a “national energy emergency” and revoked many of Biden’s executive orders on climate change.

New orders instructed agencies to roll back restrictions on offshore drilling and reconsider protections for Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Trump also issued a moratorium pausing new leases and permits for both onshore and offshore wind farms on federal lands.

He revoked an executive order that required government regulators to assess the risks of climate change to the financial system. He also instructed agencies to review any regulations that might “burden the development of domestic energy resources.”

This could include major Biden administration climate policies, such as limiting emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and imposing new fees on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

Trump’s choices for key cabinet positions at the Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency also reflected support for fossil fuel interests.

President Trump also reversed the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan, which had been established under President Biden to assist developing countries in climate mitigation and adaptation.

U.S. Withdrawal: Legal Timelines, Limitations, and Continued Climate Commitments

The Paris Agreement states that any nation’s withdrawal takes effect one year after official notice. In the case of the United States, the earliest effective date of official withdrawal is therefore sometime in January 2026.

After that, the country would no longer be bound by its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

However, the executive order does not withdraw the United States from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1992 treaty that established the international climate negotiation process.

The language of the executive order indicates that this is deliberate. The United States will retain its right to vote in the Conference of Parties, as well as its reporting obligations under the UNFCCC.

It is also notable that no action has been taken to withdraw the NDC submitted by the Biden administration in December 2024. The United States’ NDC had aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% from peak levels by 2035.

The Structural Flaws of U.S. Participation in Global Climate Agreements

The necessity of U.S. participation is often linked to its perceived role as a diplomatic leader. Yet the reality is that the United States has often acted as a major obstacle in international climate negotiations.

Its historical approach has frequently been marked by delaying tactics, narrow self-interest, and outsized influence, regardless of which party controls the White House.

For example, during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in the 1990s, the Clinton administration pushed for weaker targets and resisted binding enforcement mechanisms. However, despite securing many of the concessions it sought, the administration was unable to ratify the treaty.

This pattern continued with the Paris Agreement, where the United States resisted legally binding financial obligations, blocked stronger enforcement mechanisms, and weakened provisions for loss and damage accountability.

While these compromises were important for maintaining U.S. participation, they left the agreement with several long-term structural vulnerabilities.

A similar pattern of instability affects domestic federal climate policies designed to meet U.S. commitments. Key initiatives often rely on fragile executive authority rather than durable bipartisan legislation, making them vulnerable to reversal.

Beyond these concessions, President Trump’s current position and the narrow-minded climate revisionist attitude of the Senate echo George W. Bush’s 1992 statement that “the American way of life is not negotiable.”

The United States is also the only nation to have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. By doing so again, it joins only three other nations — Iran, Libya, and Yemen — as non-members.

U.S. Withdrawal and the Weakening of Global Climate Ambition

The United States’ withdrawal makes maintaining, let alone enhancing, the ambition of emission reduction efforts more difficult.

This is not simply about one nation stepping back. It is a deliberate weakening of the multilateral system at a time when global unity is more critical than ever to combat the climate crisis.

Todd Stern, Obama’s chief climate negotiator, described Trump’s decision to withdraw as “an act of diplomatic malpractice.”

U.S. negotiation, acceptance, withdrawal, and rejoining of the agreement have left legacies that are likely to shape future climate diplomacy.

Some observers argue that the administration’s withdrawal from the agreement:

Reduced U.S. standing in the world by making the United States an international outlier on climate change.
Strengthened perceptions that the United States was withdrawing from its traditional leadership role.
Created space for China to increase its global leadership on climate change and influence in international organizations.
Made the United States appear less reliable as a negotiating partner.

This volatility could also trigger a domino effect among nations questioning their own climate obligations, further destabilizing the global consensus.

The potential fallout is already visible. Argentina, under President Javier Milei, has begun reconsidering its commitment to the Paris Agreement by withdrawing its delegation from the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, and signaling doubts about the deal.

The Milei administration’s reevaluation of Argentina’s position in the Paris Agreement, along with Milei’s meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago during the November climate negotiations, highlights how U.S. withdrawal could encourage other nations to follow the same path.

Additionally, when a major emitter “free rides,” it reduces ambition among others. Trump’s executive order is aimed at stopping U.S. climate finance contributions.

This means that the new global climate finance goal of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035, agreed upon in Baku, has become much harder to achieve.

This will directly affect the poorest countries and will also weaken international trust in the effectiveness of the climate negotiation process.

The withdrawal reduces other countries’ emission space and raises their emission costs, potentially reducing the overall pool of available funding.

The refusal to contribute to climate aid also makes it more difficult to fund climate research, which could compromise the quality of future IPCC reports and undermine the scientific authority of future climate negotiations.

The cyclical nature of U.S. participation has consumed enormous diplomatic energy, created massive disruption, and forced global climate summits to focus on strategies to reintegrate the United States instead of advancing ambitious collective goals.

Negotiators are repeatedly drawn into damage-control efforts, crafting concessions to stabilize U.S. involvement instead of addressing emerging challenges such as climate migration and loss and damage.

This dynamic creates a reactive rather than proactive approach to global climate governance.

Another primary impact of withdrawal is the creation of a leadership vacuum. By withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, President Trump abandoned the leadership role expected from the community of nations working together to tackle climate change.

Through this tactic, Trump aimed to renegotiate the agreement to make it more favorable for the United States.

Possible Measures to Enhance Global Participation

The Paris Agreement established a non-compliance mechanism managed by a committee. This is a mechanism of dispute resolution based on diplomatic rather than judicial methods.

In case of violation of the agreement, the committee has the power to start a quasi-judicial procedure with the aim of declaring a state “non-compliant.”

This is essentially a procedure of naming and shaming. It has symbolic value only, since the committee has no judicial powers and cannot issue a compulsory judgment against a breaching state.

Since global warming is a common concern that does not affect a single state only, it falls under the legal regime of “erga omnes” obligations, which are owed by each state to the entire international community.

Article 49 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts states that injured states can adopt countermeasures in response to a wrongful act in order to induce the breaching party to comply with its obligations.

Therefore, some argue that the European Union, for instance, could lawfully impose a carbon tax on imports of industrial products from U.S. companies as a trade countermeasure.

Following a “tit for tat” strategy, a more practical option would be to block or frustrate U.S. demands in other international negotiations or organizations, such as NATO or the WTO.

Yale University economist William Nordhaus, winner of the Nobel Prize in 2018, argues that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding and are likely to fail.

According to this view, the best way to cut global emissions would be for governments to negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus only on country-specific emission limits.

For instance, introducing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) at the global level, already envisioned by the European Union, could help establish a collectively agreed minimum carbon price.

Another step would be to bring other high-emission countries to the table, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, Canada, and Mexico. Their attitudes are likely to change significantly due to Trump’s policy.

New alternative leaders could increasingly emerge to drive more ambitious and effective climate action.

The European Union stands out as an obvious potential leader, with its European Green Deal setting ambitious emissions reduction and economic transformation goals.

Similarly, China, despite its significant emissions, has signaled leadership through its long-term carbon neutrality goal and major investments in renewable energy installation and manufacturing.

A U.S.-free climate regime would likely foster a polycentric governance model, with leadership distributed across multiple actors. This could create a system more resilient and less vulnerable to the volatility of a single nation’s domestic politics.

A Post-U.S. Climate Regime and Alternative Leadership

A post-U.S. climate regime could empower alternative leadership, foster ambitious cooperation, and streamline negotiations free from U.S. obstructionism.

The disruption caused by the United States over the years might be somewhat justifiable if the country were a leading climate performer. However, the reality is quite different.

The United States has consistently ranked among the worst climate performers in the developed world over the past three decades. This raises serious questions about whether the efforts required to appease Washington are worth it.

U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would not necessarily mean the end of American climate action. Climate progress in the United States over the past three decades has often occurred at the state and local levels.

These efforts include renewable energy targets, carbon trading systems, and commitments to phase out fossil fuels. Such initiatives have often outpaced federal commitments, showing that subnational actors can lead climate action despite federal hesitation.

In the context of a permanent withdrawal by Washington, coalitions such as the U.S. Climate Alliance and “We Are Still In” could be empowered to enhance their leadership.

They could formally partner with the international community to create a parallel framework for collaboration, where trade agreements and technology partnerships bypass Washington.

This could allow regional and local actors to contribute meaningfully to global climate action.

Additionally, a “we-go-alone” strategy may become difficult for the Trump administration to maintain over time. Many coal mines closed under Obama may not reopen because they are no longer competitive.

U.S. oil majors are also global corporations and may not support actions that cause reputational damage.

Finally, U.S. partners in global negotiations may use an issue-linkage strategy. China, in particular, may refuse concessions on trade or currency if Trump adopts an aggressive stance on climate issues, especially as climate policy has become part of China’s national interest.

Conclusion

The withdrawal of the United States and its possible permanent absence from future climate agreements would undoubtedly be disruptive, both symbolically and materially.

However, it is important to remember that 194 other countries, representing approximately 90% of global emissions, have not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. Therefore, hope for a better future still exists.

The world must not make concessions in the face of American arrogance. Instead, it must renew a network of global agreements to restore hope for a future where multilateral cooperation prevails over the hegemonic push of the new U.S. administration.

Properly channelled, U.S. absence could catalyse a more resilient and decentralized global climate governance system.

Alternative leaders such as the European Union, China, and smaller coalitions could advance more ambitious and equitable climate initiatives.

To put it bluntly, the climate crisis has become far too urgent for the world to keep playing this game.

For three decades, the United States has been given countless opportunities to prove itself as a worthy leader on climate change, only to falter again and again.

Perhaps the moment has finally come for the world to chart a new course — one that leaves behind the weight of American volatility and strives instead for a more equitable and resilient response to the defining challenge of our era.