Donald Trump has ratified the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. A severe blow to the climate? Yes, but not only that.
On 21 January, having just taken office for his new term, Donald Trump officially notified the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Calling the treaty an "inequitable and one-sided scam", he justified his decision before his enthusiastic supporters. This is not the first time it has happened: back in 2017, during his first term, Trump had made the same decision.
This choice undoubtedly represents a severe blow to global climate cooperation. The United States, the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, plays a crucial role in tackling climate change.
However, their withdrawal could paradoxically bring some surprising developments as well: Trump's presidency has been characterised by a marked obstruction of the transition, and his continued presence in international negotiations would have further compromised collective efforts. In short, with the United States away from the table, other countries could press ahead without the risk of sabotage or pressure to water down the most ambitious measures.
The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 by 196 countries, represents the first major international treaty to tackle the climate crisis. Its objective is to keep the rise in average global temperature well below 2 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels, ideally aiming to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. Exceeding this threshold would bring disastrous consequences, including more intense heatwaves, droughts and more frequent extreme weather events.
Signatory countries committed to presenting pledges for emissions reductions (the NDCs, nationally determined contributions). The United States, under the Biden administration, had rejoined the international treaty at the start of 2021, but now under Trump the withdrawal will take effect within a year. The US will thus find itself, alongside Iran, Libya and Yemen, among the few nations outside the treaty.
This does mean, however, that the United States will formally remain in the agreement until January 2026 and will therefore be able to participate in Cop30 in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025. This event will be pivotal for the revision of NDCs, but the presence of a US delegation under Trump's leadership "could prove more harmful than helpful", argues Rebekkah Markey-Towler, a law doctoral candidate at the University of Melbourne and member of the Melbourne Climate Futures network, writing in the US outlet The Conversation.
"If the United States were to participate in negotiations without a genuine climate commitment, it would risk destabilising the diplomatic balance and obstructing the most ambitious decisions", explains Markey-Towler, as has already happened in the past with Saudi Arabia, which at Cop29 in Baku attempted to weaken the final negotiating text. "In the absence of the United States, the other signatories are more likely to advance the negotiations".
Of course, the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will not be without negative consequences. One of the most significant will be the loss of transparency: Washington will no longer be required to submit regular updates on its emissions, making it harder to monitor global progress. Furthermore, the Biden administration had allocated funds to help the most vulnerable countries with their energy transition and climate adaptation, but under Trump these contributions could be cut, further worsening the difficulties of the nations most exposed to the effects of global warming. And then there remains the fear that other countries could follow Trump's example: both New Zealand and Argentina have already expressed an intention to leave the Paris Agreement.
If we consider the positive side, however, Trump's first withdrawal in 2017 had a limited impact thanks to the commitment of American states, cities and companies, which continued with ambitious climate policies, led by the magnate Mike Bloomberg. The same scenario could play out again today: investments in renewable energy are already outpacing those in fossil fuels, and many local administrations will continue to adopt measures to reduce emissions, regardless of the federal government's choices.
While the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement represents a step backwards in the fight against climate change, it could on the other hand foster greater cohesion among the remaining signatories, freed from the obstacle of a denialist administration. The void left by Washington could be filled by other international players, such as the European Union and China, determined to lead the ecological transition. Moreover, this decision could easily be reversed by a future president more inclined towards climate action.
The United States' withdrawal, therefore, despite its negative repercussions in the short term, could paradoxically strengthen global efforts, making room for those who are truly committed to fighting global warming. At this point, the real question is who will be ready to rise to this challenge.