U.S. Exit from UN Climate Bodies: What Trump’s Withdrawal Means for Global Climate Governance

The United States has taken an unprecedented step in global climate diplomacy. U.S. President “Donald Trump” has signed a presidential memorandum withdrawing the country from 66 international organisations, including the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” (UNFCCC) and the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). The move goes far beyond the earlier decision to exit the “Paris Agreement”, effectively removing the US from the core architecture that governs international climate action.

What exactly has the U.S. decided?

On February 4, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing a review of all international organisations, conventions and treaties to determine whether they were “contrary” to US interests. The subsequent memorandum announced withdrawals from a wide set of climate, environment and development-related bodies, including the UNFCCC, IPCC, International Solar Alliance, IUCN, IPBES, UN Population Fund and UN Energy.

While leaving the Paris Agreement had already signalled Washington’s scepticism towards multilateral climate action, exiting the UNFCCC is far more consequential. The UNFCCC is the parent treaty under which annual Conference of Parties (COP) negotiations are held and under which the Paris Agreement legally sits. Almost every UN member state is a party to it; the US will now become the first country to formally walk away from this foundational treaty.

Why the UNFCCC matters to global climate diplomacy

The UNFCCC is not just another international agreement. It provides the legal and institutional framework for:

• Setting global norms on emissions reductions and climate ambition
• Tracking and reporting national greenhouse gas emissions
• Negotiating rules on transparency, carbon markets and adaptation
• Overseeing climate finance mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund

By withdrawing, the US will no longer be a “Party” to the system that drafts and enforces these rules. Although it may still attend some meetings as an observer, it will lose the legal standing to negotiate, block, or shape outcomes from inside the room at COPs.

Legally, the UNFCCC allows withdrawal after three years of membership, with effect one year after formal notice. Crucially, the Convention also states that withdrawal from it is deemed withdrawal from all protocols under it — meaning the US will automatically cease to be a Party to the Paris Agreement as well.

The U.S. as a major emitter: why this exit is consequential

The decision carries particular weight because of the United States’ outsized role in the climate problem. According to data from the “Global Carbon Project”, US territorial CO₂ emissions in 2024 were about 4.9 billion tonnes — roughly 12.7% of global emissions. On a per-capita basis, emissions stood at around 14.6 tonnes per person, far above the global average.

Historically, the US is the world’s largest cumulative emitter of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry, responsible for roughly 24% of total global emissions. Domestically, US emissions are driven largely by fossil fuel use in transport, electricity generation and heating, with transportation now the single largest source.

Against this backdrop, withdrawing from the UNFCCC — while the President has repeatedly questioned the reality of climate change — raises concerns about accountability and collective action.

Climate finance and the politics of responsibility

One of the most immediate impacts of the US exit could be felt in climate finance. The UNFCCC oversees a financial mechanism that includes institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility. As a non-Party, the US will lose influence over how this architecture evolves — and may find it politically easier to justify withholding contributions altogether.

For developing countries like India, this risks making climate finance more unpredictable at a time when needs are rising sharply. According to the OECD, developed countries mobilised $115.9 billion in climate finance in 2022, crossing the long-promised $100 billion mark for the first time. But adaptation finance remains severely inadequate: the UN Adaptation Gap Report 2025 estimates annual needs of $310–365 billion by 2035, compared to just $26 billion in public adaptation finance in 2023.

When a wealthy, high-emitting country steps away from the system, it weakens trust and hardens negotiating positions, especially among poorer countries that already see climate promises as unevenly honoured.

What stepping away from the IPCC means for climate science

The IPCC plays a distinct but complementary role to the UNFCCC. It does not make policy, but assesses and synthesises global scientific research on climate change, its impacts and response options. Its reports form the shared evidentiary base on which climate negotiations rest.

Exiting the IPCC does not automatically bar American scientists from participating. Experts can still contribute as reviewers or be nominated through observer organisations. However, government membership matters in practice: it shapes coordination, nomination pipelines and the ability to influence assessment priorities. Reduced US involvement could weaken the country’s role in shaping the scientific benchmarks that underpin global climate rules.

Broader global repercussions and what lies ahead

The larger risk is to the momentum and coherence of global climate action. Climate negotiations function on reciprocity — when a major historical emitter exits, it undermines the expectation that all large economies will play by shared rules. This may embolden other reluctant governments to delay action or dilute commitments.

There is also a structural implication. As universal forums weaken, climate action may shift towards smaller groupings, bilateral deals and trade-based instruments such as carbon border measures. That could lead to fragmented standards, more disputes, and greater uncertainty for global markets.

For poorer countries, the near-term danger is slower mitigation, weaker adaptation support, and reduced progress on loss and damage — precisely when climate impacts are intensifying and financing needs are expanding.

Taken together, the US withdrawal from both the UNFCCC and the IPCC marks a retreat not just from specific agreements, but from the multilateral logic of global climate governance itself — with consequences likely to ripple far beyond Washington.