The United States’ decision to withdraw from the global climate governance framework marks one of the most consequential ruptures in international climate politics in recent decades. By announcing its exit from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and over 60 other international treaties and organisations, the US has signalled a near-complete disengagement from multilateral efforts to address climate change. Coming on the heels of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Donald Trump’s second term, the move raises serious questions about the future effectiveness of collective global climate action.
What exactly has the US withdrawn from?
On Thursday, the US confirmed its withdrawal from the “”, the foundational treaty that underpins global climate cooperation. Alongside this, it announced its exit from several key climate-related institutions, including the “”, the “”, and the “”.
This decision follows the earlier withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, notified soon after President Donald Trump assumed office for a second term. That exit will formally take effect on January 20, after the mandatory one-year notice period.
A long-standing American ambivalence on climate obligations
The US relationship with international climate agreements has always been uneasy. While it played a central role in shaping the UNFCCC in the early 1990s, it never ratified the “”, which imposed binding emission reduction targets on developed countries.
In fact, the US later led efforts to create a more flexible alternative, culminating in the Paris Agreement. Yet even under Paris, American performance remained weak. Emissions reductions fell short of expectations, and contributions in climate finance and technology transfer — core responsibilities under both UNFCCC and Paris — were limited.
From reluctant participant to active disengagement
Despite poor compliance, the US historically remained engaged in global climate discussions. It invested heavily in climate science, clean technology research, and global monitoring systems, shaping the scientific and policy discourse around climate change.
This approach shifted sharply under President Trump, a vocal climate sceptic. His administration has systematically cut funding and staffing in national climate research agencies, weakening long-term data collection and monitoring systems that are critical not just for the US but for global climate assessments. The current withdrawal goes further by dismantling institutional links with the international climate regime altogether.
Immediate and long-term global consequences
In the short term, the direct impact on global emissions may be limited. The world was already off track to meet its 2030 climate targets, and the US itself was not on a credible pathway to close the gap. The deeper concern lies in the long-term implications. By stepping away from global climate leadership, the US risks marginalising itself in a domain that is increasingly shaping economic competitiveness, energy security, and geopolitical influence.
Why China stands to gain
The US retreat opens strategic space for China. Clean energy transitions depend heavily on manufacturing capacity, supply chains, and infrastructure — areas where China already holds a commanding lead. By vacating the multilateral climate space, the US risks undermining its own economic interests and diplomatic leverage, particularly in the Global South where future energy demand growth will be concentrated.
What this means for India
For India, the implications are mixed. Reduced American pressure could ease short-term expectations for rapid decarbonisation. However, India’s efforts to attract investment, technology, and collaborative partnerships in clean energy may suffer. Prior to Trump’s second term, India and the US shared a strategic partnership on climate and clean energy that supported initiatives across renewable energy, energy efficiency, and innovation. That cooperation is now likely to stall.
The US exit from the International Solar Alliance carries symbolic weight. India had co-founded the ISA with France at the 2015 Paris climate conference, and although the US joined only in 2021 and provided no financial support, its withdrawal weakens the political momentum behind such South-led multilateral initiatives.
A stress test for climate multilateralism
The US withdrawal places renewed strain on the multilateral system’s ability to manage global commons problems. While international climate action will not collapse without American participation, the absence of the world’s largest economy and one of its biggest historical emitters complicates ambition-setting, climate finance mobilisation, and trust between developed and developing countries.
What to note for Prelims?
- Objectives and roles of UNFCCC, IPCC, IRENA, and ISA
- Key differences between the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement
- Nature of US obligations under international climate treaties
- India’s role in founding and leading the International Solar Alliance
What to note for Mains?
- Implications of US withdrawal for global climate governance
- Climate change as a dimension of US–China strategic competition
- Impact of shifting global climate politics on India’s energy transition
- Limits and resilience of multilateral institutions in addressing climate change
The US exit underscores a central paradox of contemporary climate politics: even as clean energy becomes economically compelling across the world, political commitment in some major powers is weakening. How the remaining global community responds will shape the future credibility of climate multilateralism.
