On 4 January 2026, the US announced it will leave dozens of international organisations, many of which exist to protect the climate and environment. Theresa Jedd warns that this America-first policy of international environmental isolationism is disappointing for the world, and could harm the people it claims to protect
In an Executive Order on 4 January 2026, the Trump Administration announced its departure from dozens of environmental International Organisations (IOs), including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), along with United Nations organisations such as the Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These withdrawals will result in major losses for international relations and diplomacy, as well as the environment.
Without the US involved, research will suffer setbacks. Knowledge and resources that the US has provided are jeopardised. The US has, historically, made large amounts of data on earth and atmospheric systems openly available. Satellite data on forest cover collected at regular intervals through US space programmes, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration monitoring from Mauna Loa, and global earthquake monitoring could all be revoked from organisations that need it to make critical decisions about energy and the environment.
US withdrawal from dozens of environmental organisations will result in major losses for international relations and diplomacy, and jeopardise environmental research
This is not to say that the US itself is a superhero when it comes to environmental protection. On the contrary, its track record has been bleak. It has exported its waste and offshored the most polluting manufacturing sectors. American companies have sited chemical facilities in locations that exposed local populations to disastrous release of toxic chemicals. The notorious 1984 Union Carbide accident, which led to more than 22,000 deaths in Bhopal, India is one example. Offshoring in Mexico has led to heavy metal air pollution. Even when things go as planned, the operation of domestic manufacturing facilities can prove deadly. Under US regulations, cancer is on the increase in Alabama and Pennsylvania where steel coking plants are located.
The Trump administration has framed these withdrawals as serving the national interest. This claim is misguided: disengagement from environmental institutions carries real risk for American’s health, safety and long-term security.
If the US falls out of diplomatic grace with its offshoring partners, the reshoring trend in manufacturing could continue, which would intensify exposure to environmental harms.
Withdrawal reduces the chances of the US working harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It weakens external accountability. This decision to withdraw has been made by an administration that has already rejected uniform national climate standards. The US has the highest per capita emissions. Without national standards, states run the risk of adopting minimum regulatory standards to attract industry. This could trigger a race to the bottom for carbon dioxide regulation, and could lead to a tragedy of the global atmospheric commons.
Americans will continue to lose credibility under a policy of international environmental isolationism which shirks responsibility and basic existential global risks
Americans are already losing credibility internationally – and they will continue to lose under a policy of international environmental isolationism. As a foreign policy, international environmental isolationism shirks responsibility. It ignores basic existential global risks. Withdrawal from environmental IOs could sever American business ties as a result of disapproval from major partners, especially those in Europe.
American scientific organisations such as the American Geological Union rapidly committed to continue to support individual scientists who serve in the IOs like the UNFCCC, from which the national government has withdrawn.
Other states will hold these organisations up without the US. Indeed, these institutions may end up better off without American support. New alliances could be formed, and new narratives about the future could be crafted by states willing to decarbonise. After all, a strong military is not a prerequisite to participate and steer the direction of outcomes in IOs. Weaker states can wield influence in more subtle ways such as shaping the discourses and narratives or by supporting alliances between groups of states. Some emerging economies have already reached net-zero, disproving the dominant message from fossil fuel companies that traditional energy sources are the sole path to economic growth.
In recent years, the US has blocked progress, but now some environmental organisations could make more headway in achieving their objectives
This may be a positive outcome for cooperation and alliances. In recent years, the US has blocked progress, but now IOs could make more headway in achieving their objectives. This could be the case for resource-specific IOs such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), which has achieved its goals by protecting forests in tropical countries. Now the ITTO’s sustainability certification could become more stringent without the US claiming that it is a form of trade discrimination. The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) might strengthen its resolve to uphold the commitment of its founding states, Canada and South Africa to making mining safer for workers and the environment.
The US withdrawal from environmental IOs is a loss in most domains, and a small win in others. In any case, environmental political scientists will not remember this moment fondly. Yet optimism is necessary. This is a temporary moment in US environmental diplomacy that the next administration could reverse. As Amitav Acharya puts it, 'to survive Trumpism and emerge stronger, existing multilateral institutions must adapt, reform, and redouble their efforts. If they do so successfully, the United States will one day be compelled to rejoin on more egalitarian terms'.
If future administrations continue Trump's foreign policy, prospects for meaningful US cooperation look bleak. Yet this moment should not necessarily be read as the end of American environmental diplomacy. From a constructivist perspective, institutions and norms remain malleable. A change in leadership could still re-anchor US foreign policy in shared values and renewed international responsibility.
Image credit: 2026 World Economic Forum / Benedikt von Loebell. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
