Yesterday, President Trump issued a memorandum on “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States” (the Memorandum). The Memorandum directs all executive departments and agencies to take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States and cease participating in and funding of 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that “operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.” Most notably, the Memorandum directs the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a move with potentially far-reaching implications for global climate action, climate multilateralism, and international climate science coordination and reporting.
This bulletin identifies the key climate, environment, and energy-related organizations listed in the Memorandum and provides an overview of the differing processes and implications of withdrawing the U.S. from the UNFCCC and the soon to be effected withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
Non-UN Organizations. The U.S. will withdraw from the IPCC and, among others, the following climate, environment, and energy-related non-UN organizations:
- 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
- Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
- Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
- Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
- International Energy Forum;
- International Renewable Energy Agency;
- International Solar Alliance;
- International Tropical Timber Organization;
- International Union for Conservation of Nature;
- Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century; and
- Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
UN Organizations. The U.S. will effectively withdraw from the UNFCCC and, among others, the following climate, environment, and energy-related UN organizations by “ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law”:
- Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
- International Law Commission;
- International Trade Centre;
- UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
- UN Conference on Trade and Development;
- UN Energy;
- UN Oceans; and
- UN Water.
Overview of UNFCCC and Paris Agreement Withdrawal Processes
As outlined in our article during COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, “A Dispatch from COP 29 on the Future of Paris in the Trump Era”, the processes and implications for withdrawal from the UNFCCC are very different than U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The key question is whether President Trump has the legal authority to make it more difficult for a subsequent administration to re-enter the Paris Agreement by also withdrawing the U.S. from the UNFCCC, which is in fact, a treaty. Generally, treaty approval requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate (i.e., 67 votes). When the US entered the UNFCCC Treaty in 1992 under the George H.W. Bush presidency, the Senate gave its “advice and consent” to enter the UNFCCC and the U.S. became the first industrialized country to ratify the treaty.
The Paris Agreement. Former President Obama accepted the Paris Agreement (notionally as an agreement made pursuant to the UNFCCC treaty, which expressly authorises subsequent agreements) by way of an executive agreement on 3 September 2016. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that a Party may withdraw from the agreement any time after three years after the agreement has entered into force for the Party, with withdrawal taking effect upon the expiry of one year from the date of written notice. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14162 directing the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and on January 27, 2025, the UN Secretary General issued a depository notification of the withdrawal of the U.S. This means that the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement will formally take effect later this month on January 27, 2026.
UNFCCC. The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution is silent on the president’s power and the process in order to terminate a treaty that has been entered into with the advice and consent of the Senate. And the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has considered, but refrained from deciding, whether a Senate-authorized treaty could be legally terminated by executive action of the president without the prior or subsequent authorization of Congress (collectively) or the Senate (alone). That uncertainty of power and process has played out in the courts without uniform result. President Reagan unilaterally terminated a treaty with Nicaragua without challenge in 1985. However, President Carter’s attempt to terminate a mutual defence treaty with Taiwan in 1979 was legally challenged. With divided lower courts, the plurality of the Supreme Court intentionally avoided deciding the issue on the basis that it was a political question (Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)).
So the question is unclear, and if the process of how and if President Trump can unilaterally exit the UNFCCC without Senate ratification is legally challenged — it is very likely to end up before SCOTUS. President Trump now has three hand-picked judicial appointees and three additional very right leaning (two of which are Trump-leaning) Supreme Court justices, resulting in a 6-of-9-judge conservative majority that, based on numerous recent decisions, is extremely likely to support unilateral executive action on the exit of the UNFCCC. If that is the case, Article 25 of the UNFCCC is identical to Paris, and exit would be effective upon a year’s notice. However, should the next U.S. administration wish to rejoin the UNFCCC, it may be extremely difficult to do so without the two-thirds “advice and consent” majority of the Senate — a challenging bar to meet for any administration in an age when the 100-member Senate is generally held only by a slim majority.
There is also the possibility that if the withdrawal is not legally challenged, a new president could rely upon the fact that a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate was not obtained for the withdrawal and take the position that the U.S. never legally withdrew from the UNFCCC and is still a party to the treaty. Alternatively, a new president may be able to rely on the original 1992 Senate majority vote to re-enter the UNFCCC without seeking another two-thirds “advice and consent” majority of the Senate.
It may be time to get legally creative if President Trump takes the additional step of formally withdrawing from the UNFCCC (which may have very little additional MAGA PR value compared to simply withdrawing from the Paris Agreement). Moving forward, it seems that it will be neither easy nor efficient for business to navigate the growing patchwork of disparate international, national, and sub-national programs that are committed to addressing climate change and regulating GHGs outside the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement system.
For further information or to discuss the contents of this bulletin, please contact Lisa DeMarco at lisa@resilientllp.com.
