The decision by Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change marks an unprecedented break from the world’s core climate governance architecture. Beyond symbolism, the move has material consequences for climate diplomacy, finance, and the credibility of multilateral action at a time when climate risks and funding needs are intensifying.
What exactly has the U.S. withdrawn from?
The presidential memorandum covers withdrawal from 66 international organisations and conventions deemed “contrary” to U.S. interests after a government-wide review ordered in February 2025. Among these, the UNFCCC and the IPCC are foundational pillars of global climate action.
The UNFCCC is the parent treaty under which annual Conference of the Parties (COP) negotiations are held and under which the Paris Agreement operates. Almost every UN member state is a party to it. The IPCC, in contrast, does not negotiate policy but synthesises global climate science to inform decision-making.
By exiting the UNFCCC, the U.S. becomes the first country ever to leave the treaty, automatically placing it outside the Paris Agreement as well.
Why the UNFCCC exit is more consequential than Paris
The U.S. had already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement earlier, signalling disengagement from emissions targets. Exiting the UNFCCC goes much further. It removes the country from the legal and institutional framework that governs:
- Reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions
- Rule-making on transparency, carbon markets, and accounting
- The conduct and outcomes of annual COP negotiations
While the U.S. may still attend some meetings as an observer, it will no longer have the legal standing of a “Party” — meaning no seat at the negotiating table where rules are written and bargains struck.
The U.S. emissions profile and historical responsibility
The withdrawal is especially significant given the U.S.’s emissions footprint. The country remains among the top global emitters in absolute terms, per capita emissions, and cumulative historical responsibility.
Recent estimates suggest:
- Annual CO₂ emissions of roughly 4.9 billion tonnes in 2024 (around 12–13% of the global total)
- Per capita emissions far above the global average
- Nearly a quarter of cumulative global CO₂ emissions since the industrial era
Transportation, electricity generation, and fossil fuel use dominate the emissions profile, with land use and forests offsetting only a modest share. For many developing countries, this context sharpens perceptions of inequity when a major historical emitter steps away from shared rules.
Implications for climate finance and developing countries
The UNFCCC oversees a financial mechanism that includes bodies such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility. Withdrawal means the U.S. loses influence over how this architecture evolves — and makes it politically easier to justify withholding contributions altogether.
This comes at a delicate moment. Climate finance discussions have moved beyond the older $100 billion target toward much larger quantified needs, particularly for adaptation and loss and damage. Estimates show adaptation finance requirements rising into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually by the 2030s, while current flows remain far short.
For countries like India and other developing economies, the risk is not just lower funding but greater unpredictability, complicating long-term planning for resilience and energy transitions.
Stepping away from the IPCC: science without ownership
Exiting the IPCC weakens the U.S.’s role in shaping the shared scientific reference points that underpin global negotiations. The IPCC’s assessments create common benchmarks on climate impacts, risks, and mitigation pathways.
American scientists may still participate as reviewers or through non-government nominations, but reduced official involvement narrows coordination and influence. Over time, this could dilute the U.S.’s ability to shape how science translates into policy norms.
Global ripple effects and fragmentation risks
Climate diplomacy depends heavily on reciprocity and trust. When a wealthy, high-emitting country exits universal frameworks, it weakens expectations that others will comply with shared rules. This can:
- Harden negotiating positions of poorer countries
- Give cover to reluctant states to delay action
- Push climate action into fragmented arenas such as trade measures, bilateral deals, and carbon border adjustments
Such fragmentation risks uneven standards, higher trade friction, and more contested pathways to decarbonisation.
What to note for Prelims?
- UNFCCC is the parent treaty of the Paris Agreement
- Withdrawal from UNFCCC implies withdrawal from all its protocols
- IPCC is a scientific body, not a policy-making one
- COPs are held under the UNFCCC framework
What to note for Mains?
- Implications of U.S. withdrawal for climate equity and common but differentiated responsibilities
- Impact on climate finance predictability for developing countries
- Risks of fragmentation of global climate governance
- Tensions between national sovereignty and global public goods like climate stability
