The United States has withdrawn from a number of international organisations, particularly those dealing with climate change. Nearly a year after President Donald Trump ordered a review of US participation in global institutions, the administration announced plans to leave 66 United Nations-related and other international bodies it considered “contrary to American interests.”
Among the most high-profile were environmental and climate-focused groups, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It will take a year for the US to fully withdraw from the UNFCC after which the country would become the first ever to withdraw from the treaty central to global efforts to tackle climate change. While some US officials might still attend sessions as observers, they would be barred from participating fully in negotiations. The decision can be reversed by a future administration.
Beyond The Green Economy
The effects of leaving climate bodies are not limited to renewable energy or “green economy” firms. Decisions made in UN climate forums influence trade rules, regulatory standards, and supply chains around the world. For instance, countries like the European Union and China often set emissions standards or carbon border adjustments that affect US exporters. Even companies without direct climate exposure could face increased costs or reduced market access.
Climate-related discussions shape technical standards, reporting frameworks, and disclosure requirements for businesses. Many of these standards align with processes under UNFCCC or related international initiatives.
Why Some Organisations Were Left Behind
While the Trump administration exited several climate and renewable energy organisations, it has not left all of them. For example, the US remains part of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
- Influence over Decision-Making: In institutions like the IEA and WMO, the US has significant influence. These bodies rely heavily on US data and expertise, such as satellite monitoring and ocean observation, giving the country leverage in shaping outcomes. In contrast, organisations like IRENA, which focus solely on renewable energy, offer the US less structural influence.
- Protecting Industry Interests: Participation allows the US to safeguard economic interests. For example, in UNEP-led talks on a Global Plastics Treaty, the US has blocked provisions that could cap domestic plastic production, protecting one of its largest industries. Similarly, discussions on shipping emissions under the International Maritime Organisation involve potential carbon taxes, which could affect US shipping and trade. Remaining in these forums allows the US to influence rules rather than accept unfavorable agreements.
- Selective Engagement: The Trump administration's strategy shows selective engagement, staying in organisations where the US can control or heavily influence outcomes, while leaving those where it lacks leverage or whose agendas conflict with domestic priorities, particularly around fossil fuel use and climate policy.
What This Means For Businesses
Even as the US steps back from some climate forums, decisions made internationally will continue to affect American companies. Businesses may need to increase direct engagement with foreign governments and industry coalitions to protect their interests. Early coordination with the US government is also important, particularly in forums where the country remains active, to ensure American priorities are represented.
