What Happens When the World’s Largest Polluter is No Longer at the Table?

When President Trump took office in January 2025, one of his first actions as president was to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Although the official withdrawal process takes a full calendar year, and, as such, the U.S. is still technically a party to the Agreement, the Trump administration decided not to send a delegation to COP30. In fact, the administration not only declined to engage in COP30 negotiations but actually eliminated the entire Office of Global Change under the State Department that has historically overseen all U.S. involvement in international climate negotiations. 

In the COP30 venue, the U.S.’s absence is palpable. Although the U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement before (in 2016, under Trump’s first administration), the uncertainty surrounding the U.S.’s commitment to any form of climate action and Trump’s focus on growing the U.S. fossil fuel industry have elevated concerns about the stability of the multilateral process. Throughout week one, multiple events were held to discuss what the U.S.’s swift exit means for COP30 and the future of international climate policy. 

In one session that I attended, former U.S. negotiators asserted that the gaping hole left by the U.S. would be difficult to fill. Although the U.S. has historically inhibited progress toward ambitious climate action at the international level, one former negotiator suggested that the U.S. is missed in the negotiating rooms because of the country’s willingness to compromise in bilateral back-room negotiations. In addition, she asserted that without the U.S., other countries that had previously let the U.S. take the heat for common positions would end up similarly obstructing the process. Another former negotiator pointed out the historical precedent for the U.S. leaving key multilateral climate agreements: the Kyoto Protocol. In that case, the U.S. leaving the table resulted in other major players disengaging, curtailing the efficacy of the Protocol. Overall, the former negotiators emphasized the importance of having the largest emitters at the table, expressing that it’s always “better when the U.S. shows up at the table, even if it isn’t perfect.” 

At another event, leaders from other countries expressed the importance of U.S. involvement and their concerns about its withdrawal from the UNFCCC process. Representatives from the Global North and Brazil shared fears that their own countries might follow in the U.S.’s footsteps. A representative from Australia’s parliament expressed fears that the political narrative and misinformation/disinformation in the U.S. were beginning to influence politics in Australia, increasing climate denialism and the popularity of the far right. A representative from the British government shared a similar sentiment, suggesting that two different political parties in the UK have begun “taking their signals from Trump.” Brazil’s representative on the panel expressed concerns that the Brazilian elections in 2026 would be influenced by the U.S. far right and anti-climate movement.

Leaders from the Global South also shared specific concerns about the U.S. reducing support for mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries. As a Nigerian parliamentarian expressed, the U.S.’s more general trend toward isolationism has reduced access to key financial flows in Nigeria and other African countries. While the Global South bears the brunt of historic U.S. emissions, the U.S. has been able to “run away from its responsibility.” 

Panelists in both events also emphasized that the fight is far from over. Just because the U.S. federal government has backed out doesn’t mean that Americans no longer have a responsibility to fight climate change. They proposed a variety of ways that U.S. officials and everyday people can continue to be involved:

U.S. officials: 

1. Members of Congress must work to differentiate themselves from the federal government and take action despite resistance from the Trump administration. 
2. Congress and the courts must protect institutions and the democratic process.
3. Congress and the courts must work to get dark money out of the political process. 
4. Members of Congress must find areas of compromise and bipartisan agreement. 
5. Subnational governments should make their own commitments to reduce emissions and even collaborate with international partners. 

Students, voters, workers, and all those concerned about the future of our planet (i.e. you!):

1. Universities and educators can continue to contribute to climate change research while shaping the next generation of engaged scholars, activists, and policymakers. 
2. Vote! And mobilize others to vote! Every race matters, especially in the current political climate. 
3. Document actions and strategies to resist the far-right takeover in the U.S., and share these lessons with other countries that are in danger of following suit. 
4. Work to hold companies accountable by calling out greenwashing and unethical environmental practices. 
5. Build community, even with people with whom you don’t agree. 
6. Believe that a better future is possible and fight for it!