Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The United States has withdrawn from the 1992 climate treaty that started international climate cooperation. American negotiators have also exited the scientific bodies that assess climate risks and withdrawn from technical negotiations that determine how global carbon markets work. Those negotiations will now proceed without American input. American companies will eventually have to play by whatever rules get written.
This isn’t the Paris Agreement withdrawal from Trump’s first term. That was one specific climate deal. This is withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change itself—the main treaty that all other international climate agreements are built on. It’s been where countries have negotiated climate deals for three decades.
The executive order signed January 7, 2026 targets global organizations, though sources vary on whether the total is 65 or 66 entities. The withdrawals include thirty-one UN entities and thirty-five non-UN bodies. The exits include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the gold-standard scientific body that pulls together research scientists have checked and verified. Also on the list: the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Solar Alliance, and dozens of specialized technical organizations. These groups coordinate everything from forest protection financing to ocean governance to emissions reporting standards.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called the Green Climate Fund “radical” and said it was misaligned with the administration’s focus on energy affordability. The fund was specifically designed to channel finance from wealthy nations to developing countries for adaptation and mitigation projects.
Technical Standards and Carbon Markets
The UNFCCC isn’t primarily a venue for making grand commitments. It’s the system countries use to work together on emissions reporting standards, carbon market rules, adaptation finance allocation criteria, and transparency frameworks for tracking whether countries meet their commitments.
U.S. negotiators won’t be in the room when these technical standards get decided. The Paris Agreement includes rules for international carbon markets—systems where countries can trade emissions reductions. The rules governing those markets—which projects can generate carbon credits, how credits get verified, how to stop countries from counting the same reduction twice—are being negotiated right now in UNFCCC processes.
Without U.S. participation, those rules get written by whoever shows up. China, the EU, and other participating nations will determine the technical standards for international carbon markets. U.S. companies will eventually participate in whatever markets result, but the country will have had no formal voice in designing the rules they’ll have to follow.
The same dynamic applies to emissions transparency frameworks. The UNFCCC has spent years developing tougher rules about what countries have to report so greenhouse gas emissions data becomes globally comparable. U.S. technical experts have historically contributed to developing the methods that make emissions data comparable across countries and different national accounting systems. That expertise now exits the process.
Adaptation Finance for Vulnerable Nations
The funding withdrawal hits hardest in developing nations that depend on finance from other countries for adaptation projects—the concrete measures communities take to protect themselves against impacts happening right now.
Bangladesh faces extraordinary vulnerability from sea-level rise, typhoons, and river flooding. The country has calculated that implementing its National Adaptation Plan through 2050 requires approximately $230 billion—an amount impossible to mobilize without much larger amounts of money from other countries.
Small island developing states have been clear: this financing must be new, grant-based funding specifically dedicated to helping communities cope with disasters resulting from global emissions these low-emitting nations didn’t cause. The U.S. withdrawal means the world’s wealthiest nation with the highest cumulative historical emissions won’t be present when fund governance gets finalized.
Adaptation projects planned with the expectation of U.S. contributions now face recalculation of timelines and scope. Developing country governments that had budgeted for U.S. finance must reassess national adaptation plans with reduced expected resources. Small island states that had begun designing marine ecosystem protection projects and coastal defense infrastructure now must reassess timelines based on whether they can proceed with full support from other countries or reduced project scope.
Domestic Science Funding Preserved
While the Trump administration withdrew from working with other countries, Democrats and Republicans in the House both voted against cutting federal agencies. The spending package passed in early January 2026 preserves near-level support for NOAA at approximately $6.1 to $6.2 billion, far better than the administration’s proposed cuts.
NASA’s budget receives a trim to $24.4 billion rather than the 24 percent cut proposed by the administration, with approximately $2.166 billion allocated specifically to NASA’s Earth Science division. That division provides satellite data for risk assessment and adaptation planning.
The House votes came after the Trump administration’s initial proposals to substantially gut agencies encountered significant blowback from moderate Republicans representing districts facing serious hazards like hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding. Their constituents depend on federal weather forecasting, disaster preparedness, and adaptation resources.
This creates a tension. The administration argues U.S. energy dominance and technological innovation can drive emissions reductions independent of deals with other countries. Congressional preservation of science support suggests a different perspective: U.S. resilience requires both domestic scientific capacity and participation in mechanisms that shape global governance. The specific Congressional decisions to fund NASA’s Earth System Observatory missions and the Landsat Next satellite constellation reflect recognition that understanding global dynamics requires sustained scientific observation transcending national borders.
China’s Expanding Influence
When major contributors withdraw, remaining participants and alternative sources step forward. The resulting institutional arrangements reflect the priorities and interests of nations participating rather than the preferences of nations that chose to exit.
China’s financial participation in global mechanisms comes with quiet power to shape how these systems work, what priorities receive emphasis, and what governance structures develop. The U.S. would have exercised this influence through participation. Now it cannot, except as an outside observer.
The carbon market rules negotiated in international carbon market discussions will proceed with U.S. negotiators absent. China, the EU, and other participating nations will determine the technical standards governing carbon markets worldwide without U.S. input. The governance structure for money to help countries deal with disasters they didn’t cause will be shaped in discussions where the world’s largest historical emitter is not present to negotiate terms or offer resources.
The European Union’s commissioner Wopke Hoekstra called the decision “regrettable and unfortunate” while reaffirming European commitment to research and working with other countries.
Corporate and State Action as Alternatives
One question raised by the withdrawal: whether corporate initiatives, state and local action, and other approaches can make up for the loss of U.S. participation in multilateral institutions.
In 2025, technology investment reached $40.5 billion globally according to venture capital data, reflecting growing concentration in solutions including adaptive technologies, renewable energy infrastructure, and emerging approaches like geoengineering research and wildfire prevention systems.
California alone has committed to policies and renewable energy investments substantially exceeding what many entire nations have pledged through deals with other countries. The state effectively operates a policy regime independent of federal commitments, pursuing development of new clean energy technology and changing how energy markets work that will influence global clean energy markets regardless of what governance frameworks establish.
However, corporate, state-level, and domestic regulation face significant limitations in substituting for framework participation. The UNFCCC framework includes almost every country in the world and creates formal structures through which scientific findings and state responsibilities are examined transparently, with official channels for nonprofits and community groups to have a say that domestic regulatory frameworks and corporate initiatives typically don’t match.
Carbon markets worldwide require technical standards and governance that can only be established through negotiations between countries. Corporate initiatives and domestic regulation cannot unilaterally create the frameworks within which countries can accept carbon credits created elsewhere and used to meet commitments in other nations.
Adaptation finance for the world’s most vulnerable nations requires coordination between countries and resource transfer from wealthy nations to developing nations in quantities that charities, company programs, and state-level efforts cannot realistically provide without institutional structures directing resources between countries.
Consequences and Uncertainty
The withdrawal represents a gamble that American action at home, corporate initiatives, state and local governments’ policies, and technological innovation proceeding independently of frameworks with other countries will produce sufficient global emissions reductions to address risks.
This bet involves accepting significant loss of influence over how global work proceeds, how technical standards get established, how financial resources get allocated, and how developing nations’ adaptation financing gets determined. Other nations and alternative mechanisms will shape the global response in ways that may or may not align with U.S. interests.
UN Chief Simon Stiell characterized the withdrawal as a massive mistake that hurts America itself, inflicting harm not primarily on other nations but on economic interests, security, and political influence.
What’s already clear: vulnerable nations facing extraordinary exposure confront reduced adaptation financing and delayed implementation of resilience projects precisely when impacts are accelerating. The technical governance frameworks governing carbon markets worldwide, emissions transparency standards, and adaptation finance allocation will proceed without participation in shaping outcomes. The balance of power is shifting, with China positioning to expand its influence within institutions as the United States steps back.
Developing nations recalculate adaptation plans with reduced expected resources. Carbon market negotiations proceed without U.S. input on rules companies will face. The technical standards, financial mechanisms, and governance structures shaping global response will be determined by nations present at the negotiating table. The United States chose to leave that table, accepting whatever rules get written in its absence.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.