United States Completes Second Paris Agreement Withdrawal, Abandoning UN Climate Framework Entirely

The United States has officially withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for the second time, completing a year-long exit process that removes the world’s largest economy from the principal multilateral framework governing global climate action. The withdrawal, which took effect on January 27, 2026, leaves the United States as the only country in the world outside the landmark climate pact.

The unprecedented move represents far more than symbolic posturing. In tandem with the Paris exit, the Trump administration has initiated withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) itself – the 1992 parent treaty under which the Paris Agreement was established – as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body for climate research. Together, these actions amount to what climate analysts describe as a wholesale abandonment of international climate governance.

Build the future you deserve. Get started with our top-tier Online courses: ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7, HESI EXIT, NCLEX-RN, NCLEX-PN, and Financial Literacy. Let Serrari Ed guide your path to success. Enroll today.

The Legal and Diplomatic Timeline

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, directing the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to formally notify the UN Secretary-General of America’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Under Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal could not take effect until one year after this notification, establishing the January 27, 2026 exit date.

This marks the second time the United States has departed from the Paris climate pact. During his first term, Trump filed notice to exit in November 2019, with the withdrawal becoming effective on November 4, 2020 – coincidentally, the day after Democrat Joe Biden won the presidential election. Upon taking office in January 2021, Biden swiftly rejoined the agreement, a process that took just 30 days from notification to the UNFCCC.

The current withdrawal follows a January 7, 2026 presidential memorandum announcing the U.S. intention to leave not just the Paris Agreement, but 66 international organizations and UN entities in total, including the UNFCCC and IPCC. The memorandum claims authority “vested in me as president by the constitution and laws of the US” to withdraw from these bodies, though it includes a caveat stating that “for UN entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.”

Contested Legality of UNFCCC Withdrawal

While the process for leaving the Paris Agreement is clearly established in the treaty text, the legality of unilaterally withdrawing from the UNFCCC is far murkier and potentially unconstitutional. As Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, explains, the critical difference lies in how each agreement was adopted.

The Paris Agreement was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. President Barack Obama took the position that because the agreement “did not impose binding legal obligations on the US, it was not a treaty that required Senate ratification.” This allowed Obama to enter the agreement through executive action, which also made it easier for Trump to exit through executive action.

The UNFCCC, by contrast, was submitted to the Senate by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and unanimously ratified by a 92-0 vote before Bush signed it into law. Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that treaties receive the “advice and consent” of the Senate, including a two-thirds majority vote, to be ratified. Legal scholars argue that this same constitutional requirement should apply to withdrawing from Senate-ratified treaties.

“There is an open legal question whether a president can unilaterally withdraw the US from a Senate-ratified treaty,” Gerrard notes. The Trump administration, however, claims constitutional authority to exit the UNFCCC without congressional approval. In an interview with the New York Times on January 8, Trump stated he did not “need international law” and that his powers were constrained only by his “own morality.”

If the UNFCCC withdrawal is completed, the United States would become the first and only country in the world to leave the framework convention. Moreover, re-entering the UNFCCC would require a new two-thirds vote from the Senate, creating a substantially higher barrier for any future president seeking to rejoin international climate cooperation.

COP30 Reaffirms Global Commitment Despite U.S. Absence

The U.S. withdrawal took effect shortly after the conclusion of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where 194 countries gathered in November 2025 to advance implementation of the Paris Agreement goals. The conference, held at the gateway to the Amazon rainforest, was branded the “COP of implementation,” signaling a shift from negotiating commitments to delivering concrete action.

For the first time in the history of UN climate conferences, the United States sent no official delegation to COP30, a symbolic absence that foreshadowed the formal withdrawal to come. The conference nevertheless proceeded to approve what organizers called the “Belém Package” – a comprehensive set of 29 decisions adopted by consensus covering adaptation finance, just transition mechanisms, technology transfer, and gender equity in climate action.

Shortly after the U.S. exit became effective, the UNFCCC posted a statement emphasizing continuity: “The Paris Agreement is the world’s shared framework to combat climate change and limit global temperature rise. At COP30 in Brazil, 194 countries representing billions of people reaffirmed their commitment to this vision and resolved to go further, faster, together.”

The COP30 outcomes included an agreement to triple adaptation finance to $120 billion per year by 2035, progress on indicators to measure adaptation efforts, and the launch of a Global Implementation Accelerator to prioritize high-impact climate actions. Brazil also announced the creation of 10 new Indigenous territories, one encompassing over 78% of the Amazon National Park, and launched the $125 billion Tropical Forest Forever Facility to protect forests globally.

However, the conference fell short of securing binding commitments on phasing out fossil fuels and halting deforestation, reflecting the difficult geopolitical environment. More than 80 countries supported explicit language on transitioning away from fossil fuels, but opposition from oil-producing states prevented consensus. The Brazilian presidency announced it would pursue voluntary roadmaps on these issues outside the formal negotiation process.

Diplomatic Fallout and Global Reactions

The withdrawal has generated widespread diplomatic concern about its ripple effects on global climate ambition. Sue Biniaz, a former deputy U.S. climate envoy, articulated the broader stakes: “Yes, the real economy is moving in the direction of renewables, clean energy, etc, but there’s still a role for the global regime in terms of sending political signals and nudging that real economy along. Now, that ambition is going to fall behind.”

Biniaz and other experts worry that U.S. disengagement could depress ambition elsewhere, as countries use America’s retreat as justification for their own inaction. “I think other countries are looking at the fact that the US is departing from the international climate regime and using that as a reason to do less,” she warned. Reports indicate that Israel is considering a similar withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, though no formal announcement has been made.

The geopolitical implications extend to relations with China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. Jeremy Wallace, professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University, argues that “The US abdication on climate allows fossil advocates in China more voice to slow down the energy transition. A pro-climate president in the White House would push China to be more ambitious.”

This dynamic is particularly significant given that cooperation between the United States and China was seen as critical to the original success of the Paris Agreement in 2015. During the Obama administration, joint U.S.-China commitments helped break deadlocks and encouraged other nations to support the agreement. The current U.S. withdrawal removes this bilateral pressure mechanism.

The absence of U.S. representation at international climate negotiations also creates a practical vacuum. As Kristie Ebi, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, observes: “When you look at all these conventions and the history of participation, even when countries were not really actively engaged in negotiations, it’s pretty astonishing to walk away from the table and have decisions taken without your input.”

One decision can change your entire career. Take that step with our Online courses in ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7, HESI EXIT, NCLEX-RN, NCLEX-PN, and Financial Literacy. Join Serrari Ed and start building your brighter future today.

Domestic Policy Retrenchment

The international withdrawal aligns with sweeping domestic rollbacks of climate and clean energy policies. The Trump administration has simultaneously cancelled federal clean energy awards, revisited greenhouse gas regulations, halted offshore wind development, and moved to expand fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters.

The administration is expected to soon repeal a 2009 determination that classified climate change as a threat to public health and welfare – a finding that underpins the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants. Clean car regulations based on this endangerment finding are also slated for elimination.

Trump has consistently dismissed climate science, describing climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” The administration frames climate regulations as imposing unnecessary economic harms on American businesses and workers, particularly in fossil fuel industries. This “America First” approach positions international climate agreements as burdens to domestic growth that disadvantage U.S. competitiveness.

The White House justifies its withdrawal from international climate bodies by arguing they “no longer serve American interests” and claiming that exiting saves taxpayer money while refocusing resources on domestic priorities. President Trump has emphasized his commitment to revitalizing the coal industry and expanding oil and gas production, policies he argues will strengthen the U.S. economy and enhance energy independence.

The Emissions and Temperature Stakes

The climate science community has responded with alarm to the U.S. withdrawal. The year 2024 was the hottest on record globally, and 2025 is confirmed as the second or third hottest, adding to a long-term trend where the last 12 years have been the 12 warmest in recorded history. Global temperatures have risen approximately 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, predominantly due to human activity.

The United Nations Environment Programme’s 2025 Emissions Gap Report shows that without immediate, aggressive action, the world is on track for a global average temperature rise of between 2.3 and 2.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by century’s end. The report estimates that U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would add another 0.1 degrees Celsius to this range, though some researchers dispute the magnitude of this effect.

These projections far exceed the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts toward 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – thresholds that climate science identifies as critical for limiting the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

By the end of COP30, 119 countries representing 74% of global emissions had submitted new national climate commitments (Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs). However, these commitments collectively deliver less than 15% of the emissions reductions required by 2035 to hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, even without accounting for the U.S. withdrawal.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that “the gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide.” He emphasized that keeping the 1.5°C goal within reach requires “deep, rapid emission cuts – with clear and credible plans to transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy.”

The Real Economy Divergence

Despite the federal government’s retreat from climate action, significant portions of the U.S. economy continue moving toward decarbonization, driven by market forces, state policies, and private sector commitments. Capital investment in low-carbon energy is outpacing fossil fuels globally, and renewables accounted for more than 90 percent of new power capacity additions in 2024.

Large segments of clean technology supply chains are dominated by Chinese firms, particularly in solar manufacturing, electric vehicles, and grid technologies. These sectors continue expanding globally even without policy alignment in Washington, suggesting that the energy transition has achieved momentum that transcends individual national policies.

Within the United States, many states, cities, and corporations have maintained their own climate commitments independent of federal policy. The U.S. Climate Alliance, comprising states representing over half of the U.S. economy, has pledged to uphold Paris Agreement goals regardless of federal withdrawal. California, in particular, continues to implement ambitious climate policies including vehicle emission standards that influence the national automotive market.

Some researchers argue that U.S. emissions trends are relatively divorced from international legal obligations and will be determined primarily by domestic economic factors, state policies, and market dynamics. This view holds that the Paris withdrawal is largely symbolic and will have limited direct impact on actual U.S. emissions trajectories.

However, other analysts emphasize that federal policy signals matter enormously for directing investment, accelerating technology deployment, and maintaining the political sustainability of climate action. The absence of federal support for clean energy can slow adoption, increase costs, and create uncertainty that dampens private investment, even if it does not completely halt the transition.

International Finance and Technology Implications

The U.S. withdrawal has particular significance for climate finance and technology transfer to developing countries – areas where American participation and funding have been substantial. During the Obama administration, the United States committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, though only a portion was ultimately delivered before Trump’s first term.

At COP30, developed countries committed to mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action in developing nations, with adaptation finance specifically targeted to triple to $120 billion per year. The U.S. withdrawal removes a major potential contributor to these finance flows, placing additional burden on remaining developed country parties.

Developing nations have long emphasized that their ability to pursue ambitious climate action depends heavily on financial and technical support from wealthier countries that bear historical responsibility for the majority of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The absence of U.S. participation in these mechanisms could constrain developing countries’ capacity to implement their nationally determined contributions.

The Path Back: Legal and Political Obstacles

Any future U.S. president seeking to rejoin the Paris Agreement would face a relatively straightforward path, as re-entry requires only 30 days from notification to the UNFCCC. President Biden demonstrated this in 2021 when he reversed Trump’s first withdrawal with an executive order on his first day in office.

However, if the Trump administration completes its withdrawal from the UNFCCC itself, rejoining would be substantially more difficult. Because the UNFCCC was Senate-ratified, re-entering would require another two-thirds Senate vote – a high bar given current partisan polarization on climate issues. This could effectively lock the United States out of the UN climate framework for years or potentially decades, as achieving 67 Senate votes for a climate treaty appears highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

The political volatility around U.S. climate policy – with dramatic reversals occurring every time the presidency changes hands between parties – has damaged American credibility in international negotiations. Other countries question whether commitments made by one U.S. administration will survive the next election, making it difficult for the United States to serve as a reliable partner in long-term climate cooperation.

This pattern of enter-exit-reenter undermines the stability that multilateral frameworks require to function effectively. Long-term investments in clean energy infrastructure, technology development, and adaptation measures depend on policy certainty that the U.S. political system currently cannot provide on climate issues.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Climate Future

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and potential exit from the UNFCCC marks a critical juncture for global climate governance. While the international community has reaffirmed its commitment to the Paris goals at COP30 and continues advancing implementation, the absence of the world’s largest economy and second-largest emitter creates both practical and symbolic challenges.

Climate diplomats and scientists emphasize that the physical reality of climate change operates independently of political decisions. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere regardless of whether countries participate in international agreements, and the climate consequences will affect all nations, including those that choose to disengage from collective action.

The crucial question is whether the rest of the world can maintain and accelerate climate ambition without U.S. federal participation, and whether American states, cities, and businesses can compensate for the absence of national leadership. Early indicators suggest that the clean energy transition has sufficient economic momentum to continue, but the pace and scale may fall short of what climate science indicates is necessary to avoid the most severe impacts of warming.

For the United States, the withdrawal represents a strategic retreat from leadership in what many analysts view as the defining issue of the 21st century. Whether this retreat serves American interests, as the administration claims, or undermines them by ceding influence over the energy economy of the future, will be debated for years to come. What remains certain is that the decision will have profound consequences for both domestic U.S. policy and the trajectory of global climate action in the critical decade ahead.

Ready to take your career to the next level? Join our Online courses: ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7 , HESI EXIT  , NCLEX – RN and NCLEX – PN, Financial Literacy!🌟 Dive into a world of opportunities and empower yourself for success. Explore more at Serrari Ed and start your exciting journey today! ✨

Track GDP, Inflation and Central Bank rates for top African markets with Serrari’s comparator tool.

See today’s Treasury bonds and Money market funds movement across financial service providers in Kenya, using Serrari’s comparator tools.

photo source: Google

By: Montel Kamau

Serrari Financial Analyst

29th January, 2026