The United States’ decision to withdraw from a wide range of international organizations and treaties related to environmental protection and climate action has raised concerns among scientists, policymakers and environmental advocates worldwide. While the move signals a retreat from multilateral climate diplomacy, experts say it does not mark the end of global—or even domestic—environmental action.

The withdrawal plan, announced by the White House, involves exiting 66 international organizations and agreements that the administration says no longer serve US interests. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a US-based nonprofit science advocacy group, described the decision as a “new low,” warning that it reflects a broader anti-science and anti-environment approach.

Among the organizations affected are several key global environmental bodies, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also included is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the cornerstone of international climate governance that organizes the annual UN climate conferences.

The UNFCCC was instrumental in the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, under which countries pledged to limit global warming and prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Shortly after beginning his second term, President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, reiterating his long-standing skepticism toward climate science and his support for the fossil fuel industry.

Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the UCS Climate and Energy Program, said the withdrawal from the UNFCCC demonstrates the administration’s willingness to undermine global cooperation. In a statement, she argued that the decision sacrifices public well-being and weakens collective efforts to address a shared global crisis.

European leaders responded with disappointment but emphasized their continued commitment to climate action. European Union climate chief Wopke Hoekstra said the UNFCCC underpins global climate efforts and described the US decision to retreat from it as “regrettable and unfortunate.” However, he reaffirmed that Europe would continue to support international climate research and cooperation.

German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider said the move was not unexpected, noting that the US had appeared increasingly isolated on climate policy in recent international negotiations. He pointed to new international alliances on carbon markets, fossil fuel phaseouts and countering climate misinformation as evidence that momentum for climate action continues without US federal leadership.

Petter Lyden, co-head of international climate policy at the environmental NGO Germanwatch, said the US withdrawal would have practical consequences, including the loss of financial contributions and influence in shaping global climate policy. Nevertheless, he stressed that the transition toward a low-carbon economy is already well underway. According to Lyden, the expansion of renewable energy and climate-friendly technologies continues to generate economic benefits for countries investing in them.

Within the United States, the decision has drawn sharp criticism from climate leaders and former officials. Gina McCarthy, who served as the first national climate adviser under former President Joe Biden and now chairs the climate coalition America Is All In (AIAI), called the withdrawal “shortsighted” and damaging to US economic and strategic interests. She warned that exiting global climate frameworks would limit the country’s ability to influence major investments and policies that could protect Americans from increasingly costly climate-related disasters.

Despite the federal government’s retreat, McCarthy emphasized that states, cities, businesses and institutions remain committed to climate action. The AIAI coalition, which includes a wide range of non-federal actors, plans to continue international collaboration aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Lyden noted that while individual states such as California cannot fully replace federal leadership, local and regional governments often have significant flexibility and influence. He argued that meaningful climate progress can still occur through subnational initiatives and informal cooperation.

Cleetus echoed this view, saying that forward-looking US states and much of the global community recognize the growing risks of climate change. She stressed that collective global action remains essential to securing a livable future, regardless of shifting political priorities at the federal level.

While the US withdrawal marks a setback for international climate diplomacy, experts agree that global momentum toward climate action and clean energy is likely to continue, driven by economic, environmental and societal imperatives.