“The US withdrawal from UN climate programs may signal a worldwide retreat from Climatism and the push for net zero energy policies. Leading political groups in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom appear to be joining the US to move back to sensible energy policy and away from efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.”
The Trump administration has issued an executive order that withdraws the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other international bodies. The order pulls the US back from organizations pursuing climate policies and other efforts that the administration does not consider to be in the national interest. The US abandonment of world climate groups may accelerate a pushback against climate and net zero energy policies.
The Trump memorandum issued on January 6 was titled, “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.” It orders the US government to end participation and funding of 66 international organizations, including the UNFCCC and 30 other UN organizations.
Background
The UNFCCC, an organization and treaty that established in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, is tasked with supporting “the global response to the threat of climate change.” The withdrawal leaves the US as the only nation not part of the UNFCCC.
Since the 1980s, the United Nations has used the ideology of Climatism, the fear of human-caused climate change, to pursue three objectives: 1) establish the UN as a world environmental leader, 2) strengthen efforts to establish a world government, and 3) redistribute wealth from the world’s advanced nations to the developing nations.
The UN has become the world’s leader in what is called the world’s biggest environmental issue. International climate events are held every month of the year, culminating in the COP (conference of the parties) event at the end of the year, with more than 50,000 people attending. The COP31, the 31st annual COP, will convene in November of 2026 in Antalya, Turkey.
The multi-nation COP meetings led by the UN serve as a form of world government, placing demands on individual nations in the name of fighting global warming. Former French President Jacques Chirac stated that the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty of 1997 was “the first step toward global governance.” Each year, the leadership at COP meetings demands that hundreds of billions of dollars be redistributed from the US and other wealthy nations to developing nations.
IPCC Withdrawal
The trump order also withdraws the US from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body responsible for “assessing the science related to climate change.” The IPCC issued six assessment reports from 1990 to 2023, each warning that humans were responsible for global warming. With the withdrawal, the US will no longer participate in the IPCC or fund IPCC efforts.
The recent executive order continues Trump administration efforts to withdraw from global climate efforts. This follows a February 2025 order withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, which will take effect next month.
The withdrawals attracted immediate and vehement outrage from international leaders, including Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, former US Vice-President Al Gore, and environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. Gina McCarthy, former top climate advisor in the Biden administration, stated that the withdrawals can “only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts get rapidly worse.” But evidence shows that deaths from climate events are declining, and wildfires, floods, storms, and droughts are not getting worse.
The funding cut-off will have a significant negative impact on the UN budget. The Trump administration has been cutting funding not only to climate groups, but also the Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Population Fund, the World Health Organization, and other bodies. The administration charges these groups with sponsoring “woke” and “divisive” causes that are “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
In 2025, the US provided $820 million, or 22% of the UN’s regular budget of $3.7 billion, down from 31% in 2024. The regular budget is part of an annual total UN revenue of over $65 billion, including peacekeeping and voluntary contributions to groups like the World Food Program and the UN Development Program. US cuts will heavily impact the budget for climate and other programs.
Conclusion
The US withdrawal from UN climate programs may signal a worldwide retreat from Climatism and the push for net zero energy policies. Leading political groups in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom appear to be joining the US to move back to sensible energy policy and away from efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
US participation in the UNFCCC treaty was approved by Congress in 1992 and signed by President George H. W. Bush. The Trump administration withdrawal will likely be challenged in court.
The rejection of support for UN climate change efforts moves in a radically new direction in global environmental policy. Will other nations join the US and step back from climate alarmism? Year 2026 may provide the answers for a political movement that has not only lost its momentum but is also in peril.
—————
Steve Goreham, a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy, is author of the Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure (2023); Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development (2017); The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania (2012); and Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic (2010). His previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.
“Gina McCarthy, former top climate advisor in the Biden administration, stated that the withdrawals can ‘only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts get rapidly worse.’”
It seems that Ms. McCarthy was thinking of wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts of the mind, the same kind that affects so many other climate hysterics despite the contrary data. Perhaps a group of shrinks should be convened to address such mental illness and suggest cures? Actual data seems to have little or no effect.