Why the US Exit from UN Climate Bodies Could Reshape Global Climate Action

The United States has announced its withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and more than 60 international treaties and organisations, including key climate bodies such as the IPCC, International Solar Alliance, and IRENA. Coming a year after President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, this marks a near-total disengagement of the US from the global climate governance architecture — raising questions about the future effectiveness of multilateral climate action.

What exactly has the United States withdrawn from?

The US decision covers the “UN Framework Convention on Climate Change”, the foundational 1992 treaty that underpins all global climate negotiations. It also includes exit from major scientific and policy platforms such as the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, the “International Solar Alliance”, and the “International Renewable Energy Agency”.

This comes on top of the US withdrawal from the “Paris Agreement”, which will formally take effect on January 20 after the mandatory one-year notice period. Over the past year, the Trump administration has also cut funding and staffing across US climate research agencies, weakening global data collection and monitoring systems.

America’s long and uneasy relationship with climate regimes

American discomfort with binding international climate commitments is not new. While the US played a key role in shaping the UNFCCC, it never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which imposed legally binding emission reduction targets on developed countries.

Instead, the US was instrumental in pushing for the Paris Agreement — a more flexible framework based on nationally determined contributions. Even so, its performance under Paris was widely criticised. Emissions reductions fell short, and climate finance and technology transfers — core obligations under the UNFCCC — remained limited.

Yet until recently, the US never denied the reality of climate change. It remained deeply engaged in climate science, clean technology innovation, and green investment. This changed sharply under President “Donald Trump”, a vocal climate sceptic who has openly mocked global climate efforts and sought to reverse regulatory and diplomatic progress.

Why this move matters for global climate governance

In the immediate term, the practical impact may be limited. The world was already on track to miss its 2030 emissions targets, and the US was not contributing enough to close that gap even before Trump’s return.

The deeper concern lies in the long term. By exiting the UNFCCC itself, the US has stepped outside the core forum where climate norms, rules, and accountability mechanisms are negotiated. This weakens multilateralism at a time when coordinated action is essential — and signals to other reluctant countries that disengagement carries little cost.

Cuts to US climate science also have global consequences. American agencies have historically provided some of the world’s most comprehensive climate datasets, satellite observations, and modelling capacity. Their weakening affects everyone.

Is the US undermining its own strategic interests?

Ironically, the US withdrawal may hurt American interests as much as global climate action. Renewable energy is no longer driven only by environmental concerns — it now makes economic and strategic sense. Solar and wind are among the cheapest sources of new power, and energy security increasingly depends on domestic renewables rather than volatile fossil fuel markets.

By vacating leadership in clean energy, the US risks ceding ground to “China”, which already dominates global manufacturing supply chains for solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles. Climate leadership today translates into industrial competitiveness tomorrow — and the US exit could tilt that balance further in China’s favour.

What does this mean for India?

For India, the implications are mixed. On one hand, reduced US pressure could give India more flexibility in pacing its decarbonisation. On the other, India’s plans to attract investment and technology for clean energy may face setbacks.

India had built a strategic climate and clean energy partnership with the US before Trump’s second term, spanning renewables, grid modernisation, and energy efficiency. Much of this cooperation is now expected to stall.

The US exit from the International Solar Alliance is symbolically significant. Though it joined the ISA only in 2021 and provided no direct funding, its presence added political weight. The ISA — launched by India and France at COP21 — is still evolving its funding model, and the absence of a major developed economy could slow its momentum.

Will this derail the global energy transition?

Despite the shock value of the announcement, the global energy transition is unlikely to reverse. Most countries remain committed to renewable pathways because they are cheaper, cleaner, and strategically safer. Even aggressive US efforts to boost fossil fuel supply are more likely to slow the transition than stop it.

The real test will come after Trump. Whether future US administrations choose to re-engage — or whether prolonged absence permanently reshapes climate leadership — will determine how resilient the global climate regime truly is.

What is clear is that the US has chosen to step away from shaping the rules of a system that will define economic and geopolitical power in the decades ahead.