Trump Slams Door on UN Climate Deals, Liberates America’s Energy Future

Paul Riverbank, 1/12/2026Trump’s climate retreat shakes global alliances, triggers fierce debate on U.S. leadership and innovation.

Just hours after the order surfaced on January 7, government agencies began pulling the plug on 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN-affiliated groups. The rationale? According to the administration, America’s security and economic growth were being jeopardized. In the span of a single workday, the Treasury Department yanked U.S. funding from the Global Climate Fund, a cornerstone of international climate initiatives.

The gravity of this shift is difficult to exaggerate. For years, U.S. dollars, comprising over one-fifth of the UNFCCC’s budget, provided essential leverage in global climate talks—discussions that shaped the spirit (if not always the letter) of the Paris Agreement and other landmark deals. The irony, of course, is that while Congress never formally signed off on the Paris or Kyoto treaties, the shadow of U.S. leadership—and yes, its hefty checkbook—helped drive progress.

Corporate America, as it happens, wasn’t far behind. Once upon a time, names like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street anchored the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. That era’s over. Vanguard was first to jump ship back in 2022. BlackRock, the heavyweight in the room, headed for the exit in early 2025. With its largest players departing, the alliance shuttered operations. Meanwhile, other financial sector alliances—especially those tied to the U.N.—saw their own exodus. The Net Zero Insurance Alliance, for instance, lost nearly half its members in 2023, spooked by lawsuits and red-state probes.

For years, critics—including think tanks like The Heartland Institute and high-profile former advisors—argued the international climate frameworks had become straitjackets, stifling prosperity and shifting too much power outside U.S. borders. “President Trump at one stroke has removed the United States from a long list of harmful foreign entanglements,” said Myron Ebell, a veteran of EPA transition teams. He welcomed the withdrawal, suggesting an end to what he calls “the international climate racket.” Echoing that, Sterling Burnett of Heartland labeled it “the biggest single step taken by any administration in my lifetime to advance U.S. sovereignty.” In their view, these global compacts mostly benefitted elites, with little positive spillover for regular Americans.

But there’s another side to this ledger. Some analysts and advocacy groups wasted no time voicing their worries. At the Natural Resources Defense Council, Yamide Dagnet warned the U.S. risks ceding its hard-won lead in green technology and innovation. She pointed to looming job losses in emerging sectors and saw a strategic blunder in abandoning the field to rivals: “By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot,” she said.

And yet, when America steps aside, the machinery doesn’t stop. Almost immediately, other players recalibrated—China, for one, bumped its own share of the UNFCCC tab to 20%. Across the Atlantic, Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic foundation covered yet another shortfall. The GCF coffers weren’t empty for long; if anything, the cast has simply changed.

On the home front, the repercussions are already seeping into the courts and congress. The administration’s moves went straight for the regulatory bedrock: the EPA's “endangerment finding” from 2009, which permitted the regulation of greenhouse gases, is now up for reconsideration. Lawsuits are already in motion, heading inexorably toward the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, some lawmakers are scrambling to insulate these executive changes from future reversals, suggesting new measures requiring congressional consent for any reentry into these alliances.

Critics say the fight is far from over—climate campaigners, industry groups, and attorneys are gearing up for a drawn-out contest. “Climate activists and rent-seekers have spent almost 40 years growing the climate hoax. They are not just going to let Trump consign it to oblivion by Executive order,” wrote Steve Milloy, an outspoken opponent of climate regulation.

On Capitol Hill, the mood is tense. Progressive lawmakers and members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition described the administration’s move as “a dangerous signal to the global community that America is withdrawing from its role as a world leader, leaving America weaker, poorer, and more unsafe than ever before.” For them, global engagement isn’t an unwelcome burden; it’s a crucial part of national strength.

As battle lines sharpen, both sides claim to defend Americans’ interests—one in the name of independence from foreign dictates, the other in pursuit of jobs, influence, and a more stable world. If there’s a single truth everyone can agree on, it’s this: Washington’s decision has upended the global balance, leaving a vacant seat at the table—and the world is already jostling to take America’s place.

The decision from the White House landed like a thunderclap, sending waves of confusion and heated debate through not just climate organizations but also in corporate headquarters and foreign ministries around the world. With little warning, President Trump signed an executive order that effectively withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a move accompanied by a sweeping retreat from dozens of climate-oriented global groups and financial arrangements.Just hours after the order surfaced on January 7, government agencies began pulling the plug on 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN-affiliated groups. The rationale? According to the administration, America’s security and economic growth were being jeopardized. In the span of a single workday, the Treasury Department yanked U.S. funding from the Global Climate Fund, a cornerstone of international climate initiatives.The gravity of this shift is difficult to exaggerate. For years, U.S. dollars, comprising over one-fifth of the UNFCCC’s budget, provided essential leverage in global climate talks—discussions that shaped the spirit (if not always the letter) of the Paris Agreement and other landmark deals. The irony, of course, is that while Congress never formally signed off on the Paris or Kyoto treaties, the shadow of U.S. leadership—and yes, its hefty checkbook—helped drive progress.Corporate America, as it happens, wasn’t far behind. Once upon a time, names like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street anchored the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. That era’s over. Vanguard was first to jump ship back in 2022. BlackRock, the heavyweight in the room, headed for the exit in early 2025. With its largest players departing, the alliance shuttered operations. Meanwhile, other financial sector alliances—especially those tied to the U.N.—saw their own exodus. The Net Zero Insurance Alliance, for instance, lost nearly half its members in 2023, spooked by lawsuits and red-state probes.For years, critics—including think tanks like The Heartland Institute and high-profile former advisors—argued the international climate frameworks had become straitjackets, stifling prosperity and shifting too much power outside U.S. borders. “President Trump at one stroke has removed the United States from a long list of harmful foreign entanglements,” said Myron Ebell, a veteran of EPA transition teams. He welcomed the withdrawal, suggesting an end to what he calls “the international climate racket.” Echoing that, Sterling Burnett of Heartland labeled it “the biggest single step taken by any administration in my lifetime to advance U.S. sovereignty.” In their view, these global compacts mostly benefitted elites, with little positive spillover for regular Americans.But there’s another side to this ledger. Some analysts and advocacy groups wasted no time voicing their worries. At the Natural Resources Defense Council, Yamide Dagnet warned the U.S. risks ceding its hard-won lead in green technology and innovation. She pointed to looming job losses in emerging sectors and saw a strategic blunder in abandoning the field to rivals: “By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot,” she said.And yet, when America steps aside, the machinery doesn’t stop. Almost immediately, other players recalibrated—China, for one, bumped its own share of the UNFCCC tab to 20%. Across the Atlantic, Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic foundation covered yet another shortfall. The GCF coffers weren’t empty for long; if anything, the cast has simply changed.On the home front, the repercussions are already seeping into the courts and congress. The administration’s moves went straight for the regulatory bedrock: the EPA's “endangerment finding” from 2009, which permitted the regulation of greenhouse gases, is now up for reconsideration. Lawsuits are already in motion, heading inexorably toward the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, some lawmakers are scrambling to insulate these executive changes from future reversals, suggesting new measures requiring congressional consent for any reentry into these alliances.Critics say the fight is far from over—climate campaigners, industry groups, and attorneys are gearing up for a drawn-out contest. “Climate activists and rent-seekers have spent almost 40 years growing the climate hoax. They are not just going to let Trump consign it to oblivion by Executive order,” wrote Steve Milloy, an outspoken opponent of climate regulation.On Capitol Hill, the mood is tense. Progressive lawmakers and members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition described the administration’s move as “a dangerous signal to the global community that America is withdrawing from its role as a world leader, leaving America weaker, poorer, and more unsafe than ever before.” For them, global engagement isn’t an unwelcome burden; it’s a crucial part of national strength.As battle lines sharpen, both sides claim to defend Americans’ interests—one in the name of independence from foreign dictates, the other in pursuit of jobs, influence, and a more stable world. If there’s a single truth everyone can agree on, it’s this: Washington’s decision has upended the global balance, leaving a vacant seat at the table—and the world is already jostling to take America’s place.