President Donald Trump has taken the United States out of the central legal framework that underpins global climate cooperation, severing ties with the world’s most important climate treaty architecture just as the planet barrels toward more dangerous warming. The move caps years of U.S. whiplash on climate diplomacy and leaves Washington formally outside the negotiating room where future rules for cutting emissions will be written. It is a decision with immediate diplomatic consequences and long tail risks for both the climate system and U.S. influence.
By withdrawing from the core treaty system that governs international climate talks, Trump is not only reversing earlier efforts to re-engage but also signaling that his administration intends to step back from multilateral problem solving more broadly. The exit lands amid a wider retreat from international organizations and agreements, raising questions about how much leverage the United States will retain in shaping the rules that still affect its economy and security.
What exactly Trump pulled the U.S. out of
The centerpiece of Trump’s decision is the withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundational pact often shortened to the Framework Convention on Climate Change that was ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President George H. W. Bush. That treaty, sometimes referred to simply as “The Framework Convention,” created the basic rules and institutions for how countries report emissions, negotiate targets and review progress on global warming. It is the parent agreement for later deals, including the Paris Agreement, and it anchors the scientific and diplomatic machinery that has guided climate policy for three decades.
Trump’s move does not stop at that single treaty. His administration is simultaneously pulling the United States out of a total of 66 international organizations and treaties, a sweeping rollback that includes multiple climate-related bodies. Among them is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global group studying climate change whose assessments accompany its seven-yearly reports and inform national policies and corporate strategies. Removing the U.S. from both the legal framework and the scientific advisory system amounts to a deliberate uncoupling from the institutional backbone of global climate governance.
A long build-up to an abrupt break
The decision to walk away from the Framework Convention did not come out of nowhere. One of President Trump’s first actions after returning to office in January 2025 was to announce that One of President Trump’s priorities would be to pull the United States out of dozens of global organizations, including key climate groups, a plan now being implemented and expected to face legal challenges. Earlier in his political career, Trump had already taken the United States out of the Paris Agreement before a later administration rejoined, only for his return to power to reopen the question of U.S. reliability as a climate partner.
That back-and-forth is especially stark when set against the recent history of the Paris deal itself. The United States originally joined the Paris Agreement in 2016, then pulled out a year later and rejoined in 2021, only to remain in the treaty until January 27, 2026. Trump’s latest step goes further than that earlier exit from Paris, because the Framework Convention is the parent treaty to which Paris is legally attached. As one analysis of Why Trump’s Abrupt Exit from Pivotal Climate Treaty Matters notes, withdrawing from the underlying convention threatens to destabilize global climate cooperation itself rather than just one agreement layered on top of it.
How the exit sidelines U.S. climate diplomacy
By stepping away from the Framework Convention, Trump is effectively giving up the U.S. seat at the table where future climate rules will be negotiated. The withdrawal is an escalation of the U.S. rejection of climate diplomacy under Trump, further isolating the country from global negotiations and leaving it without a formal voice in setting the standards that will shape energy markets, trade rules and climate finance. Other major emitters, from the European Union to China, will continue to bargain over carbon border adjustments, methane cuts and adaptation funding, but the United States will be present only indirectly, if at all.
Diplomats and analysts warn that this absence carries real costs. One climate expert quoted in coverage of the withdrawal argued that “Walking away doesn’t just put America on the sidelines, it takes the U.S. out of the arena entirely,” a stark assessment of how much leverage Washington is surrendering by leaving these international organizations. Without a vote or a formal role in drafting decisions, the United States will find it harder to defend its industries from foreign climate-related trade measures or to shape the rules governing emerging technologies like carbon removal and hydrogen, even though those rules will still affect U.S. companies that export into regulated markets.
Domestic fallout and the “own goal” argument
Inside the United States, the announcement landed as one fell swoop after a year of relentless cuts to U.S. climate programs, personnel and policy capacity. Reporting on the outcry over Trump’s withdrawal from international climate treaties notes that the move came just as the Convention on Climate Change was supposed to guide the next round of national climate plans, leaving federal agencies scrambling to understand what authority they still have to coordinate with foreign counterparts. For state governments and cities that have been trying to align their own climate policies with global benchmarks, the federal retreat complicates everything from emissions accounting to access to international climate finance.
Critics describe the decision as a “colossal own goal” for the United States, arguing that Trump’s actions were hardly unexpected after his earlier withdrawal from the Paris deal, to which the UNFCCC is the parent treaty. From this perspective, the exit will have limited effect on other countries’ climate policies, which are increasingly driven by domestic politics and economics, but it will deprive U.S. scientists, businesses and local leaders of the institutional support and information flows that come with full participation. The result is a paradox in which the global system keeps moving while the United States voluntarily narrows its own options.
What remains, and what comes next
Even as Trump pulls the United States out of 66 international organizations and climate treaties, his administration has chosen to keep the country in some bodies that are deemed essential for security or humanitarian functions. Reporting on which global organizations the U.S. is leaving under Trump notes that, despite the breadth of the withdrawals, the U.S. remains in a core set of institutions that handle defense alliances, emergency relief and other critical roles, a carve-out that underscores how targeted the climate retreat is compared with other areas of foreign policy. That selectivity suggests the administration is not rejecting multilateralism in every domain, but is instead drawing a sharp line against cooperative climate action in particular.
For the rest of the world, the question is how much this U.S. absence will destabilize global climate cooperation. Analyses of Pivotal Climate Treaty Matters warn that pulling out of the Framework Convention risks encouraging other reluctant countries to slow-walk their own commitments or to question the durability of the system. At the same time, coverage of how Trump withdraws US from key climate treaty and dozens of other agreements notes that it is uncertain how quickly a future administration could rejoin and whether the legal and diplomatic damage can be fully repaired, or whether the move will instead lock in a more fragmented, less predictable era of climate governance.
More from Morning Overview