TRUMP AND CLIMATE DENIALISM
Gabriela Ramírez[1] , OBELA[2]
Global action against climate change has been further weakened by the initial measures of President Trump's second administration. On 7 January 2026, he formalised the United States' withdrawal from 66 international organisations and agreements, including 31 related to environmental protection. This text will discuss the implications of this withdrawal for global climate efforts.
Building on these withdrawals, the Trump administration has undertaken a systematic campaign to remove all references to climate change and climate justice from official websites, hindering access to information that does not align with the official agenda. This measure is reinforced by the president's repeated statements describing global warming as a "hoax" or "scam" and by multiple mandates to eliminate the development of renewable energy within the United States.
In particular, withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have direct consequences for the United States' influence on climate governance. Washington will lose its seat and voice within the Conferences of the Parties (COP), the main international climate negotiations. At the same time, by leaving the IPCC, it will relinquish its ability to participate and exercise veto power in the review and approval of the Summaries for Policymakers, key documents that synthesise scientific findings for various governments.
The US's absence from global environmental forums could facilitate consensus in favour of the climate, as it has historically been a player that has slowed or blocked such agreements. One example of this was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose full implementation was delayed until 2004 because the US Senate refused to ratify it. Similarly, during the George W. Bush administration, delegations attended summits but often did so without a clear commitment.
In addition to political consequences, the US departure will deal a severe blow to organisations and agreements. Following negotiations at COP27 in 2022, the United States had committed to paying $17.5 million to the United Nations Fund for Loss and Damage Response (FRLD), a fund created to help vulnerable nations recover from natural disasters triggered by climate change.
|
Figure 1. Percentage of United Nations income by government donor, 2024 |
|
|
As shown in the graph above, the United States was the largest donor to the United Nations, accounting for 31% of total income in 2024. Membership in the UN entails a financial obligation to make mandatory contributions. These payments are essential to sustain the organisation's general budget, which covers its administrative operations and basic functions. However, compliance with this obligation varies among member states. According to 2025 data, the organisation was short $2.4 billion in assessed contributions. Of that amount, the United States owed $1.5 billion to the organisation. The hegemon's departure will only exacerbate the resource shortage.
In light of these developments, Trump's abandonment strategy and climate scepticism set a dangerous precedent. While no other country has withdrawn from multilateral organisations, a major power's exit may normalise and encourage denialism elsewhere. This could fuel disengagement and further weaken global agreements.
With the absence of the North American giant, the leadership of the environmental conversation remains to be defined. The European Union could take that position if it achieves consensus among all member countries and manages to keep out the denialist influence of the European right-wing governments. Another candidate is China, which generated more than a quarter of its electricity from solar and wind energy sources in 2025 and has contributed, through exports of solar panels, to 63% of emerging markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America obtaining a higher proportion of solar energy than the United States.
The United States' impact on international organisations marks another step towards abandoning climate responsibility, jeopardising human well-being and the survival of nature. Repeated rejection of scientific evidence does not invalidate or eliminate the consequences of environmental decline. The physical reality of climate change exists regardless of whether a country recognises it politically, and taking meaningful action remains essential for preserving the planet and future generations.
[1] Faculty of Economics. OBELA member.
[2]Dr. Oscar Ugarteche, Dr. José Carlos Díaz, Jennifer Montoya, Carlos Madrid, Jesús Córdoba, Nate Chávez
