One hundred seventy executive orders signed, over five major international organizations disrupted, and thousands of research grants frozen. Donald Trump’s vision spells disaster for science globally, especially for the climate. On Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order 14162, one of over eight orders targeting climate change, solidified the U.S.’s fall from dominance in the climate movement.
With the executive order, the U.S. officially began withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which was adopted by 196 countries on Dec. 12, 2015. Upon joining, countries pledged economic and social transformations to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Emissions are reduced through financial contributions from developed countries to less-endowed countries and nationally determined contributions (NDCs). NDCs are non-binding outlines of the state’s plan for fighting climate change. For example, the 2024 U.S. NDC aimed to reduce carbon emissions in 2035 by 61-66% from 2005 levels.
Executive Order 14162 cited both the economic and NDC requirements as reasons for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, stating international environmental agreements “do not reflect our country’s values” and “steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require … financial assistance.” Trump’s 2025 executive order marks his second attempt to leave the Paris Agreement. His first attempt, in 2017, failed due to the Agreement’s four-year withdrawal delay for a country’s first invocation. Against his intended purpose, his 2017 Executive Order led 24 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and a multitude of U.S. cities to independently vow to uphold the Paris Agreement, which exists as the U.S. Climate Alliance today.
Since then, this public sentiment has not changed. While the U.S. will officially leave the Agreement in January 2026, a recent AP News poll showed that around 46% of citizens opposed withdrawing and only 29% approved, demonstrating clear domestic opposition.
Per this sentiment, states and organizations continue to act. Composed of governors representing 55% of the population and 60% of the GDP, the U.S. Climate Alliance promised to continue combating climate change. All Alliance states are on track to cut emissions 26% below 2005 levels by the end of 2025. Similarly, America is All, a non-federal climate coalition representing over 5,000 companies and 364 local governments, has had over 1,700 organizations sign to go carbon-zero by 2050.
Additionally, this sentiment is not unique to the American populace. Countries and leaders worldwide have demonstrated confusion and disappointment over the U.S.’s move. The CEO of the European Climate Foundation, Laurence Tubiana, said, “There is unstoppable economic momentum behind the global transition, which the U.S. has gained from and led, but now risks forfeiting.” Similarly, leaders in Brazil, the U.K., and France criticized the lack of scientific evidence behind the withdrawal. The U.K.’s former foreign secretary, William Hague, expressed,“… to abandon the Paris Climate Agreement and remove all limits on fossil fuel use is to live in denial.”
However, despite the U.S. departure, the Paris Climate Accords hold strong. At the January 2025 World Economic Forum, Switzerland, China, the European Union, business leaders, and climate activists renewed their support. At the event, EU President Ursula von der Leyen stated, “The Paris Agreement continues to be the best hope for all humanity.”
Only a few nations, such as Argentina, have cited a newfound interest in leaving. This move appears to be inspired by President Trump’s declaration of Executive Order 14162, which is in line with Argentinian President Javier Milei’s previous action of following America in leaving the World Health Organization. However, Argentina has not formally withdrawn from the Paris Accords, and the 194 other countries remaining contribute around 90% of the globe’s carbon emissions. Since most other member states do not plan on leaving, the question now becomes: What happens to the United States as the Paris Accords continue in its absence?
Without the requirements for lowering carbon emissions set by the U.S.’s NDC, there remains no barrier to fossil fuel investment domestically. Trump’s plan follows this idea; as part of Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order 14154, Trump removed restrictions on mining, regulations on appliances, and the “‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate,’” which are carbon requirements enacted that aim to increase the number of EVs to 56% of the new car market by 2032.
This movement away from the green energy transition could harm clean energy job creation and innovation. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy, on the topic of renewable energy, argues, “Domestic funding for energy innovation creates jobs, drives economic growth, and makes our industries more competitive.” In 2021, clean energy companies hired 150,000 workers while petroleum and coal lost approximately 40,000 jobs. As of 2023, following the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), 3.5 million Americans worked in renewable energy; however, today, more than 42,000 of these positions have been eliminated or threatened under the Trump Administration.
For many Americans, skepticism around Trump’s decision stems from the climate impacts they face each day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that each year, the U.S. spends $150 billion on extreme climate effects. However, in January 2025, the Los Angeles wildfires alone incurred up to $164 billion of damage. Beyond costs, each year, at least 1,300 Americans die from extreme heat, with hundreds more dying due to severe climate disasters. Transitioning back to fossil fuels will only exacerbate these effects.
Unlike fossil fuels, clean energy reduces emissions. While coal produces 820 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy, solar produces 48 grams per kWh. With a shift towards carbon-rich fossil fuels and an elimination of the carbon tax, the European Economic Review found that the U.S. leaving the Climate Accords could eliminate “more than a third of the world’s emissions reduction.” Each added ton of carbon dioxide will intensify hurricanes, heat, and flooding.
Trump’s choice also threatens the U.S.’s position as an international leader in the climate sphere. Currently, the U.S. is a driver in clean energy, spearheading innovation through the IRA by investing in domestic energy production to lower carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. Although Trump attempted to freeze IRA funds, on Apr. 15, 2025, District Judge Mary McElroy reversed this executive order amendment. Yet, other funds and preservation efforts will lapse now that the U.S. will no longer be held to NDCs, allowing the Trump Administration to pivot back towards fossil fuels.
With Trump’s move, the U.S. will largely leave the clean energy market, critically compromising the U.S.’s standing on the world stage. As of 2023, renewables accounted for 10% of global GDP growth and generated 30% of global energy. Without renewables, the U.S. risks losing its position to China, which produces 80% of EVs and leads solar manufacturing. With the international decrease in fossil fuel popularity, specifically for oil and natural gas, withdrawal will erode U.S. leadership and market power.
Ultimately, Trump’s decision has left the world disappointed. In the face of rising temperatures and a global focus on clean energy, Americans will not be the only ones to suffer. Until January 2026, when the U.S. officially leaves the Climate Accords, the world will watch and wait, hoping to avoid impending disaster as the U.S. relinquishes its global duty.
Senior Science and Technology Editor
