Trump’s Isolationism and Effects on Climate Change Efforts
06/02/2025 - Written by Adina Jung
Introduction
Donald Trump is a volatile figure, seen as an ‘erratic actor’ who is constantly challenging the status quo of International Relations with his ‘Trump Doctrine’ of putting America first. His approach prioritises U.S. interests above global cooperation, leading to isolationist policies that significantly impact international agreements.
Having returned to office for a second term, Trump wasted no time reaffirming his isolationist stance. Just a day into his new administration, he withdrew the U.S. from key global agreements, with perhaps the most concerning move being his immediate second withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement which Obama signed onto in 2015. The Paris Climate Agreement is a legally binding treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. With 196 signatory nations, it represents a critical global effort to curb rising temperatures. This report explores Trump’s overarching isolationist tendencies, the broader implications of his withdrawal from international agreements, and the future of global climate initiatives in light of his policies.
Trump’s Isolationism During His First Term
Isolationism is a policy of disengagement from international affairs, particularly in politics, trade, and military alliances. Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has embraced isolationist policies, arguing that global commitments often undermine American economic and strategic interests. His stance has frequently manifested in withdrawing from multinational agreements, renegotiating trade deals, and reducing U.S. participation in international organisations.
For example, in 2017, Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a major trade agreement involving 12 nations that President Obama had signed in 2016. He also repeatedly criticised NATO, at times suggesting the U.S. might withdraw from the alliance altogether. His administration took a hardline approach to immigration, implementing stringent travel bans targeting predominantly Muslim countries and tightening border security, particularly at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Trump’s scepticism of international agreements extended to climate policy. He has long dismissed climate change as a hoax, once infamously tweeting that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” He has also mocked climate science by pointing to cold weather events, tweeting in 2019, “Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS – Whatever happened to Global Warming?”
Trump’s belief that the Paris Climate Agreement was unfairly beneficial to America’s economic competitors, particularly China, further fueled his opposition. He repeatedly claimed that the agreement allowed China—the world’s largest carbon emitter—to continue polluting while imposing undue financial burdens on the U.S. In his view, the accord was a “bad deal” that cost American jobs and prioritised environmental concerns over economic growth. His administration argued that the agreement placed disproportionate obligations on the U.S. while giving developing nations, including China and India, more flexibility in their emission reduction commitments.
As a result, in June 2017, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, fulfilling a key campaign promise. However, under the accord’s Article 28 provisions, the withdrawal process required a three-year waiting period after the agreement's ratification before a formal exit could be initiated, followed by an additional one-year transition. This meant that the U.S. remained technically bound by the agreement until November 4, 2020—just one day after the presidential election in which Trump was defeated.
During this period, the Trump administration actively undermined U.S. climate commitments. Federal environmental regulations were rolled back, climate policies were weakened, and funding for international climate initiatives was slashed. One of the most significant actions was halting contributions to international climate finance, including defunding the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF was designed to support developing nations in mitigating and adapting to climate change, but Trump’s decision deprived these countries of crucial financial resources. This move not only stalled climate progress in vulnerable regions but also eroded global trust in the United States as a reliable partner in environmental diplomacy.
Despite Trump’s withdrawal, the Paris Agreement remained intact, and in January 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the accord on his first day in office. However, the damage from the U.S.’s 4-month temporary exit had lasting effects. China and other major polluters used Trump’s erratic climate policies as evidence that the U.S. was an unreliable international actor. This narrative persisted throughout Biden’s presidency, making it more challenging for the U.S. to rebuild credibility in climate negotiations.
However, it is ironic to think that Trump’s isolationism has, in some ways, indirectly aided climate goals despite his opposition to such efforts. During his first term, Trump significantly restricted trade by imposing tariffs, particularly on China, in what became known as the 'Trump-China' trade war. He also placed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and the European Union, claiming that these measures would benefit American workers, especially in the manufacturing sector, and protect national security.
These isolationist policies created a trade gap, leading to a trade deficit due to the tariffs. By reducing trade, such policies can unintentionally contribute to climate goals. Moreover, Trump also adopted an isolationist stance in military affairs. His ‘hands-off’ approach in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Afghanistan, along with his current proposal to withdraw 2,000 troops from Europe and pull thousands more from Syria, could unintentionally benefit climate goals. If we consider climate change from a logistical perspective, less military transport, fewer fleet movements, and reduced air travel all contribute to lower emissions and less pollution. While certainly not his intention, Trump's isolationism has, in some ways, resulted in reduced environmental impact.
Trump’s Second Term Isolationism
Spanish newspaper El País has described Trump's return to office as ushering in a "new world order"—one marked by a sharp rejection of international agreements and a deepening embrace of isolationism. His nationalist agenda extends beyond climate policy, raising concerns that the U.S. may further reduce contributions to United Nations agencies or even reconsider its role in NATO. Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), and his second exit from the Paris Climate Agreement, under the slogan "drill, baby, drill," signals a decisive shift toward prioritizing domestic oil and gas production over global environmental cooperation.
The ripple effects of this decision are already being felt. Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a vocal Trump ally, has suggested that Argentina may follow suit, fueling fears that other nations— particularly those struggling with the financial burdens of climate commitments—could also reconsider their participation. Critics of the Paris Agreement argue that it disproportionately affects developing countries, with the United Nations estimating that by 2030, developing nations will require between $140 billion and $300 billion annually for climate adaptation. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the agreement as a "rip-off," pointing to China’s continued high levels of pollution as justification for U.S. disengagement.
What does this mean for the Future?
Trump’s broader isolationist stance represents a fundamental departure from multilateral engagement. Some analysts fear that his administration may go beyond the Paris Agreement and withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—the very foundation of global climate governance. Such a move would effectively sever U.S. involvement in international climate negotiations, leaving the country without a formal seat at the table in discussions on emissions reductions, climate finance, and adaptation strategies.
This shift comes at a critical moment. The year 2024 was officially recorded as the warmest in history, reinforcing the urgency of global climate action. Meanwhile, Los Angeles is currently facing some of the most severe wildfires in its history, although started by arson, they were exacerbated by rising temperatures and prolonged droughts. These conditions underscore the accelerating impacts of climate change, yet Trump's policies signal a retreat from the very agreements designed to mitigate these crises.
Moreover, experts warn that Trump’s second-term policies could lead to as much as an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. by 2030, as his administration pursues an oil-intensive approach. This dramatic increase could push global climate targets even further out of reach, emboldening other climate-sceptic leaders and deepening divisions between nations prioritising sustainability and those opting for short-term economic gains. Ultimately, Trump’s decision does not signify a failure of the Paris Agreement itself but rather a deliberate abdication of U.S. leadership on climate issues—one that could have lasting consequences for global climate efforts.
In all, even the international institutions that we deemed as stable have fragility, especially when key players such as the U.S. pull out. With Trump also pulling out of the WHO simultaneously, it shows that while these institutions are made to combat certain issues and bring states together, they are only as effective as the commitment of their members. His withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in his first term further reflects this pattern, raising questions about the vulnerability of other major treaties and agreements. If the U.S. continues on this trajectory, similar institutions could face destabilisation, ultimately weakening global cooperation on critical issues.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s renewed embrace of isolationism, exemplified by his second withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, marks a significant shift away from international cooperation on critical global issues. His administration’s prioritisation of domestic fossil fuel production over climate commitments underscores a broader rejection of multilateral governance, with potential ripple effects beyond climate policy—raising concerns about U.S. disengagement from global institutions such as the UN and NATO.
While the Paris Agreement remains intact, the absence of the United States—the world’s second-largest emitter—undermines collective climate efforts, weakening global momentum at a time when urgent action is needed. With record-breaking temperatures, worsening wildfires, and escalating climate-related disasters, Trump’s decision risks setting back progress for years, potentially emboldening other nations to follow suit.