On 7 January 2026, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the United States (US) to withdraw from 66 international organisations and treaties, explicitly including the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A prior executive order in January 2025 had already instructed U.S. officials to notify the United Nations of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and to end financial commitments made under the UNFCCC framework, such as contributions linked to international climate finance. The administration justified these steps by arguing that UN-linked climate bodies promote “globalist” or “extreme climate” agendas that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic priorities, and by framing the withdrawals as a way to stop “misuse of taxpayer funds.”
UNFCCC Adoption
The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992 and now ratified by almost all countries, sets the overarching objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It establishes principles such as “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” under which developed countries are expected to take the lead in reducing emissions and supporting climate action in developing countries. The Convention provides the institutional framework for annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs), where governments negotiate further rules and commitments, including the 2015 Paris Agreement that commits all Parties to submit and periodically strengthen national climate targets.
Geopolitical & Legal Implications
The decision to withdraw from the UNFCCC carries distinct legal and diplomatic implications compared to the previous US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC is a treaty ratified by the US Senate in 1992 and legal experts are examining whether executive authority is sufficient to withdraw without congressional consent. This may lead to domestic litigation regarding the separation of powers. From a diplomatic perspective, leaving the UNFCCC removes the US from the formal negotiating structure of all subsequent climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement. Historically, the US has used its position within the UNFCCC to advocate for transparency and shared responsibility among all emitters. Without US participation, the leadership of these negotiations likely shifts toward other major economies, such as China and the European Union, which have reiterated their commitment to the framework. Furthermore, terminating financial commitments impacts international climate finance mechanisms. The US was a significant contributor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF); the absence of these funds will require other member nations to either increase their contributions or adjust the scope of international adaptation and mitigation projects.
Implications for US States
The federal withdrawal places a significant burden on individual states, which must now sustain carbon markets without federal coordination or financial support. At the international level, the U.S. will no longer participate in the development of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which governs global carbon credit trading effectively isolating state markets from international linkage opportunities. Domestically, the impact of federal policy may be felt on markets. On January 8, 2026, California Carbon Allowance (CCA) prices dropped by more than USD 1.00 following reports that the administration is preparing a "total war" legal strategy aimed at dismantling regional carbon markets. Investors are weighing the risk of federal preemption challenges, where the Department of Justice may argue that state-level programs like the California Cap-and-Invest system and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) interfere with federal authority over interstate commerce and foreign policy. Without a federal safety net or unified strategy, the responsibility for market stability and climate resilience rests entirely on state capitals, resulting in an increasingly fragmented and litigious landscape for U.S. climate action.
The withdrawal of the United States from the UNFCCC represents a significant departure from thirty years of international climate policy. While the administration views the move as an essential step to protect domestic economic interests and sovereignty, it fundamentally alters the landscape of global environmental governance. The official withdrawal process takes one year to complete, during which the international community and domestic stakeholders should likely reassess the future of climate cooperation and market stability in the absence of one of the world’s largest economies.
ClearBlue Markets is actively monitoring these developments, for more information about ClearBlue's advisory services or market intelligence coverage, please contact us.