What’s at stake with “America First” vs. multilateralism in US Climate Policy — and where do we go from here?

By Monet Wright

So-called “America First” policy ignores scientists’ work and claims that multilateral agreements undermine national “sovereignty.” While climate multilateralism does fall short of its stated goals, it works.

Climate Policy Happenings in the Trump Administration

On January 7th, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that withdrew the United States from 66 international organizations in and outside of the United Nations umbrella as “contrary to the interests of the United States.” Notably, among organizations slated for withdrawal was the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an organization with near-global membership serving as the basis for international efforts against global warming. The US is now the only country in the world to ever exit the treaty.

As part of the Trump administration’s broad retreat from multilateralism, withdrawal from the UNFCCC follows a series of similar efforts over the last year to distance the US from international climate agreements and dismantle support for domestic environmental programs. Since the president’s assumption of office last January, America has pulled back from other multilateral bodies instrumental to global climate talks, such as exiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and declining to send a delegation to last year’s COP30 summit even before leaving the UNFCCC. Moreover, President Trump initially withdrew from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement–an agreement built on the UNFCCC to include specific climate goals for participating countries–in his first term. That was a decision which was initially reversed by former President Joe Biden, but early last year, the second Trump administration moved to withdraw from the agreement once again. 

These developments illustrate a pivotal, and somewhat controversial, juncture for the future of US climate policy on the global stage. Climate experts are concerned that retreating from climate multilateralism could exacerbate an international environmental crisis, yet those aligned with the Trump administration’s actions argue that retreating from internationalism is crucial to prioritize US interests and resources. Existing contention is deepened by underlying partisan divisions given President Trump’s widespread rollback of climate initiatives that were the work of Democrats or prior Democratic administrations (to get an idea of what that looks like, check out the Climate Action Campaign’s running timeline here).

In such a defining moment for US climate policy, opposing viewpoints seem near-irreconcilable, given the Trump administration’s institutionalization of climate science denial. Critics of the Trump administration’s actions also question the legality of certain measures it has enacted.

Those arguing against pulling back from multilateral climate efforts thus focus largely on President Trump’s rejection of climate science and the shaky legal foundation of withdrawals–reasonably so, but they generally do not address “America First” defenses of isolationism based on prioritizing US resources and challenging the efficacy of international organizations. 

Thus, in this article, I weigh the importance of US climate multilateralism in combating global warming against “America First” arguments for a continued retreat from climate agreements, barring scientifically baseless dismissals of climate change and legal concerns since they are largely continuing to be addressed, in order to draw a conclusion regarding the optimal future direction of US climate policy at this juncture. I also outline some realistic and bipartisan future directions the US can take for workable climate policy at the end, so keep reading for all that good stuff!

America First: Inefficacy & Isolationism

President Trump told the UN General Assembly in September 2025 that climate change is the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” Such rhetoric has justified, in both Trump administrations, domestic actions such as defunding clean energy initiatives and withdrawing from international climate commitments. Notably, though the conception of climate change as a “con job” has been adopted by a host of government officials sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry, it is unequivocally contradicted by scientific evidence. 

Considering this complete governmental disregard of the threat posed by global warming, it is crucial to first contextualize arguments against multilateral climate agreements within current realities of the climate crisis. The year 2025 was one of the hottest years on record.  The United States produces the second-most emissions of any country in the world, while also responsible for a quarter of all emissions ever produced. Global warming is approaching permanent tipping points that will render irreversible damage in as soon as a decade. At such a critical stage, weighing these impacts is vital to international climate policy, especially given that the US is such a huge driver of climate change.

To summarize the case against climate multilateralism, administration leadership and certain experts maintain that moving away from multilateral initiatives such as climate agreements is an essential component of putting “America First”, which involves prioritizing US interests at the expense of foreign and international commitments. Two primary arguments emerge from this concerning climate policy: (1) that international climate agreements are ineffective and therefore US funding contributions to them are wasteful, and (2) that America should prioritize its own security and interests rather than committing resources abroad in any capacity. 

On the former, it is an unfortunate truth that international climate agreements fall short of their targets more often than not, and the UNFCCC-underpinned Paris Climate Agreement is no exception. Not a single major economy is on track to meet the agreement’s crucial 2030 goal to cut emissions enough to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Moreover, a study by climate experts at leading institutions found that of 1,500 global climate policies adopted in the last two decades in service of meeting emissions targets, only 63 were successful to a significant extent.

It is true that climate multilateralism is evidently far less effective than hoped or needed to adequately address global warming, which supports US disillusionment with contributions to these initiatives. However, for the US, withdrawing from multilateral climate agreements moves the nation toward greater disregard of emissions rather than more effective policies in the short run – in essence making a problem ignored and even denied even worse. Such climate policy failures remain in large part due to international dependence on fossil fuels, as while use of renewable energy is rising, so is total energy consumption, according to Columbia climate scholar Steven Cohen. Therefore, just because climate multilateralism doesn’t achieve the stated goals, that doesn’t mean it’s not useful to help get the world moving in the right direction on environmental policy.

Another concern of the “America First” movement is the overprioritization of foreign interests at the expense of its own resources and sovereignty. In recent years, the US has made significant contributions to forwarding climate efforts around the world governed by multilateral treaties. Under the Obama administration, the US committed 3 billion dollars of support to funding green initiatives in developing countries, and the Biden administration later scaled public climate finance up to$11 billion as part of a collective annual goal for contributions by developed nations under the Paris agreement. 

Climate multilateralism was a major focus of the Biden and Obama administrations, and therefore US support for international climate finance initiatives has been significant in recent years. As a large, developed economy, the contribution of the US to total emissions is also sizeable. However, particularly when considering the aforementioned inefficacies of multilateral bodies, Trump administration officials argue that the United States should not have to shoulder the responsibility of funneling resources to other nations, even when developing countries lack the funding to pursue clean energy on their own. 

“America First” conservatives have criticized such spending as wasteful. In response to President Donald Trump’s January 7, 2026 memo withdrawing from the UNFCC, a follow-on to Trump’s Executive Order 14162 signed on his second inauguration day, UN expert Brett Schaefer of the conservative and pro-“America First” think tank, American Enterprise Institute, told NPR that he was “underwhelmed” by the decision. He would have liked to see the government pull out of even more significant organizations; the “largest recipients of US funding in the UN system [remain] largely unaddressed,” he was quoted as saying.

Another popular justification of withdrawal from multilateral climate agreements is that certain UN organizations, including climate conventions, serve ideas that clash with US interests and even its “sovereignty,” according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Addressing climate issues as lumped with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, Rubio stated on January 7, 2026 that “From DEI mandates to ‘gender equity’ campaigns to climate orthodoxy, many international organizations now serve a globalist project rooted in the discredited fantasy of the ‘End of History.’ These organizations actively seek to constrain American sovereignty. Their work is advanced by the same elite networks—the multilateral ‘NGO-plex’— that we have begun dismantling through the closure of USAID.”

Climate Multilateralism for the US and World

In contrast to supporters of “America First” policies who find multilateral climate initiatives to be a waste of money and poorly-aligned with fossil fuel-centric energy policy, those favoring participation in multilateral climate initiatives argue that it’s a good investment because it works to combat global warming and support climate resilience, even when parties fall short of the stated goals.

Critics of climate multilateralism point out that, as mentioned earlier, countries under the Paris agreement have generally failed to meet targets and many global climate policies did not achieve meaningful change. However, a study conducted by the World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews suggests that international cooperation engendered by the Paris agreement helped create significant gains in renewable energy investments and climate funding infrastructure while emphasizing reinforced country commitments and, importantly, continued multilateral cooperation to improve its success in the future.

Furthermore, examining the history of UN climate agreements reveals a positive evolution in the scope and efficacy of conventions on climate commitments since the late 20th century, illustrating potential for continued improvement. Experts such as the WJARR scholars thus assert that despite the inefficiencies inherent to such initiatives, climate multilateralism remains the key driver of progress against global warming–which, especially as global warming continues to advance, requires international collaboration. As such, the US’s contributions are arguably a vital, not wasteful, component of progress. 

Similarly, proponents of multilateralism argue that the significance of US contributions as well as its symbolic leadership as a major player in global climate efforts within such international institutions renders its participation in multilateral institutions especially crucial. Upon modeling the various consequences of unilateral non-participation in the Paris agreement, scholars in the European Economic Review found that US withdrawal would ultimately eliminate over a third of world emissions reduction. 

Others agree that considering the US’s position as a leading emitter, the Trump administration’s rejection of Paris agreement reduction targets is hugely detrimental to attaining global climate change goals. According to NPR, “climate experts worry that because the US is setting an example, other countries might pull back on climate goals, too,” thus indicating the weight of US influence on international approaches to climate change. 

Lastly, experts in foreign policy question the “America First” philosophy, citing isolationism’s harms, to argue in favor of an internationalist approach to climate policy. According to political scientist Mohammad Tarikul Islam, visiting scientist at Harvard’s Humanitarian Initiative, “successful environmental diplomacy demands a cooperative, multilateral approach. Healthy competition for the mantle of international environmental leadership is needed to reinvigorate global environmental diplomacy.”

Moreover, following withdrawal from the UNFCCC, the convention’s executive secretary Simon Stiell responded that the Trump administration’s move could only harm the US economy due to higher energy, food, transport, and insurance costs given the rise of renewable alternatives, leaving the country altogether “less secure and less prosperous” – contradicting the administration’s isolationist approach to improving security at home. 

In a broader defense of internationalism, analysts at Stimson suggest that retreating from international initiatives has destabilized the US as a global leader across sectors including not just climate efforts and the development of renewable energy, but also innovation and economic growth. This leaves room for other powers, namely China and Russia, to take advantage and assert their own supremacy, in an even more direct conflict with the aims of the America First strategy. These experts thus believe that justifications for rejecting climate initiatives are largely either baseless, lead to contradictory effects, or outweighed in the face of global warming.

In life and in US climate policy, it surely is tempting to try to go it alone. Too many cooks spoil the soup, as the saying goes. However, in the case of climate policy, the world really is better when we all work together…and now that we’ve diverted from decades of climate multilateralism to an America-First unilateralist climate policy, what’s next? I argue that it’s not too late to get back on the path to multilateralism — and that such broad-based efforts’ appeal crosses partisan divides.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Considering the arguments for and against US climate multilateralism, the benefits of participation in multilateral institutions become clear. However, the Trump administration’s reasoning in favor of pulling back on UNFCCC and other international commitments, notably concerns surrounding funding and inefficiency, remain valid considerations towards developing further action.

Going forward, it is therefore imperative not only that the current administration reconsider its rejection of international climate efforts, but also that a bipartisan approach is emphasized considering continuing divides that impede dialogue to the detriment of US interests as a whole. 

This could still take shape in the federal government, but not in the executive branch, but the legislative. While the Trump administration has taken a clear stance against climate diplomacy, promoting bipartisan unity in Congress has the potential to adjust this posture for the greater good, especially in the wake of growing challenges to the legitimacy of recent federal executive actions (including withdrawal from the UNFCCC) on the grounds of executive overreach.

Congress has already moved to block certain presidential measures intended to weaken or reduce domestic environmental programs: recently passing a bill towards stimulating funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well as earth science programs at NASA in direct response to Trump’s massive proposed budget cuts to said agencies. These actions are made possible by existing bodies that defy entrenched party divisions on the climate issue, such as the Conservative Climate Caucus, a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives seeking to educate other Republicans on the harms of climate change and effect policies towards achieving meaningful gains against global warming.

Improving congressional unity towards supporting climate multilateralism is thus a matter of recognizing that climate change is an international issue — and an international fight. By approaching climate policy in a more neutral and conciliatory yet evidence-based manner (though relatively so given the urgency of global warming), it’s possible not only for the federal government to de-escalate its controversial posture and mitigate the projected climate  consequences of its recent moves, but also to find a balance between preserving US sovereignty and security along with its climate commitments: an admittedly difficult, but necessary task given the alternative.

This could look like pairing gradually-imposed regulations on the fossil fuel industry while stimulating the growth of renewable energy to ease reliance on the former rather than failing to enforce regulations altogether; by conditional reentry into international climate bodies with provisions to protect US sovereignty; or by renegotiating funding contributions to said bodies.

If done effectively, taking an active role in international climate efforts can thus actually improve the shortcomings of multilateral agreements, as Wilson Center scholar Susan Biniaz describes. Above all, it is evident that both reprioritizing climate policy and recognizing the facts of climate change as they intersect with US interests are essential to successfully combat global warming–and that now is the critical moment to do so.