Trump Vs Climate: The Past, Present and Future of America’s Decisions on Global Climate Crisis
- Era Robbani, Najifa Alam Torsa & Zainab Khan Roza
- Oct 6
- 14 min read
In the early days of his presidency, Donald Trump took a barrage of actions and signed executive orders that will shape far-reaching policies on climate. During his first term, the administration sidelined climate, dismantling more than 125 environmental policies. Under former-President Joe Biden, the U.S. joined in climate action once again, additionally signing the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest federal investment in climate change in U.S. history. Now, the Trump Administration in their second term, is dismantling much of it, hindering important projects like the ones to stabilize fossil fuel emissions, as the planet heats up to surpass 1.5°C in 2024, the hottest year on record.
The Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s “Climate Backtracker,” has documented over 45 moves to roll back or eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures since the administration took office at the end of January, from expanding fossil-fuel production to withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords. Some of the biggest ways the Trump Administration is reversing climate action can be stated as following:
Change 1: EPA Deregulation
On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin unveiled 31 actions to reverse a series of landmark environmental regulations, calling it the “most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history” at the agency. Targets include re-evaluating limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants; dismantling vehicle emissions standards designed to hasten a shift from gas-powered to electric cars; and seeking to overturn a 2009 finding that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane represent a threat to public health. In a video announcing the actions, Zeldin reframed the goals of the E.P.A., saying that the agency’s actions would help lower costs and make the purchase of cars or the heating of homes more affordable to Americans. “Today the green new scam is over as we usher in the golden age of American success and the EPA does its part,” he said.
Change 2: Revising Logging Rules for National Forests
On March 1, the President signed an executive order to increase timber production on 280 acres of national forests and federal land. “Heavy-handed Federal policies” have “prevented full utilization” of the country’s timber resources, Trump said in the executive order. It looked to be a step toward increasing domestic production before hitting foreign nations with tariffs. (In 2023, the United States led the world in imported wood products, with $24.8 billion worth imported from Canada, China, Brazil and others.) Logging devastates a region’s biodiversity—leaving wildlife without their homes and food sources and emitting toxic greenhouse gases. The order also instructed federal agencies to seek ways to circumvent endangered species protections and other environmental rules, putting in jeopardy the fate of many of the country’s long cherished ecosystems.
Change 3: NOAA Staff Cuts
On Feb. 27, over 600 workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, were laid off as part of the Trump Administration’s drive to downsize the federal workforce. The shift is likely to have far-reaching implications for the nation’s ability to keep the public safe during extreme weather events that are only becoming more frequent as the planet heats up. NOAA is an indispensable data provider on everything from hurricanes to drought — information weather forecasters, local officials, farmers and others nationwide depend on. The agency’s weather alerts and advisories also serve as an indispensable warning system that communities use to protect themselves from extreme weather. NOAA recorded 27 weather and climate disasters last year with damages of at least $1 billion, the second highest since the agency began tracking the numbers in 1980.
Change 4: Pulling Out of the Paris Accords
On the first day of Trump’s presidency, one of the administration’s first actions was to initiate the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. The treaty — signed by nearly 200 countries in 2015 — sought to limit long-term global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) over preindustrial levels or at least to keep temperatures below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels. The move wasn’t unexpected — Trump also withdrew the U.S. from the agreement during his first term, but Biden rejoined on taking office.
Effects on LDCs, Climate-Impacted States and Small Island Developing States
Least Developed Countries (LDCs), climate-impact nations, and Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) are particularly affected by the Trump administration’s dismantling of climate policies and withdrawal from international climate agreements. Most of these countries depend on international climate finance and agreements to boost their adaptation efforts to protect against rising seas, extreme weather and food insecurity.
The Sustainable Development of LDCs: As a result, for LDCs – which too often grapple with economic and infrastructural challenges – the loss of U.S. contributions to global climate line items, such as to the Green Climate Fund, greatly constrains their ability to undertake climate-resilient development projects. These nations are not only under pressure to deal with poverty but also have to contend with increasingly severe floods, droughts and agricultural disruptions associated with climate change.
The countries, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which have already been affected by climate change are facing extreme heatwaves, hurricanes and wildfires at unprecedented levels. Without firm global leadership on climate action, these countries are in no way responsible for the environmental and economic effects they are facing as the global temperatures rise. Trump’s bid to ramp up fossil fuel production and roll back emissions regulations directly exacerbates climate impacts, upping the frequency of extreme weather that ravages these vulnerable areas.
Small island developing states — SIDS — like Tuvalu, the Maldives and the Marshall Islands are existentially threatened by climate change. Sea levels are rising, threatening coastlines and, in some places, entire islands. The United States’ retreat from prominent international climate negotiations and funding initiatives undermines global climate governance and thus restricts the ability of these countries to fight for urgent climate action. Such consequences will be felt in many of the world’s SIDS if significant cuts aren’t made in greenhouse gas emissions by major polluters, such as the U.S. Many SIDS could become less habitable by the coming decades.
The Trump administration’s climate policies do slow America’s own shift to clean energy and do have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable nations, taking them deeper into climate insecurity and economic distress. The cancellation of federal actions on climate causes a ripple effect around the world, undermining climate action where it needs to be done the most.
Key policy changes affecting emissions, water, and biodiversity protection
In January 2025, when President Donald Trump’s taking the office, the administration has enacted extensive reforms to environmental regulations in the United States. These changes have significantly altered the nation’s approach to several environmental concerns including emissions, water management and the protection of biodiversity. These changes represent a significant break from earlier climate-focused policies, which prioritised energy production over environmental protection.
Through Executive Order 14162, the United States government made a decisive move by withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. The action brought an end to the US involvement in global climate obligations and ceased financial contribution. Meanwhile, a National Energy Emergency Declaration was issued to expedite the undertaking of infrastructure project related to fossil fuels. This declaration also suspended certain environmental restrictions to increase the amount of oil and gas produced domestically. Furthermore, the government revoked a number of climate initiatives that were in place during the previous administration. These policies included environmental justice programs and incentives for sustainable energy.
Water resource management has also seen significant changes. It is presently the policy of the federal government to prioritise agricultural and urban water requirements over ecological protections. This includes controversial water diversions from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta in California, which pose a threat to endangered species such as the Delta smelt. A further proposal was made by the Texas Agricultural Commissioner, Sid Miller, to prohibit the use of fluoride additions in public water systems. Miller cited concerns regarding "natural water purity" as the reason for his proposal, which has caused disagreement among public health professionals.
There has been a severe reduction in the protection of biodiversity, as a result of which extended drilling off the coast is now authorized in areas that were previously limited. These areas include the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans, as well as some regions of the Gulf of Mexico area. Additionally, critical environmental justice efforts have been demolished by the administration, which has resulted in a cancellation of federal offices that were dedicated to tackling pollution in underserved communities.
Scientists and environmental campaigners are becoming increasing concerned with the long-term effects that these policy changes will have on the environment and public health. These developments are a reflection of a larger shift towards deregulation and expansion of fossil fuels. The government is continuing to reform environmental policy in the United States, and the discussion over how to strike a balance between energy independence and sustainability is further intensifying.
America First vs Global Climate Commitments and Responsibilities of America
Trumps “America First” approach is more likely a business ideology that focuses more on short term domestic gain rather than long term global gains. Withdrawal from policies like Paris Agreement has shown a possibility of threat of global cooperation. This action showed a deeper irresponsibility toward environment. Trumps policies are based on narrow economic theory that deprives America’s responsibility towards emissions which challenges the environmental crisis in the global corporate level. Fossil fuel lobbying has always been given more importance than scientific validation which leads to the question of America’s acknowledgement of how ecosystems are getting disrupted by climate change of an area. It is to note that emissions from one area like America can affect the climate change scenario of whole world.
Withdrawal from Paris agreement in 2017 shattered the global climate action plans because it wasn’t just a mere decision. It was being implemented based on a narrow economic mindset. As America has a history of being the biggest emitter of GHGs, this action discouraged or lowered the confidence of global leaders on prioritizing the climate action. LCD’s, specifically the global south was much influenced as America’s financial support or influence were helping them get over the climate crisis of which they are the most vulnerable. In the meantime, it became impossible to overlook the impact of this decision as wildfire, floods, sea level rise, habitat loss, biodiversity lose etc. were rising. All because environmental restrictions were dismantled in the US. The US dissolved the scientific panels as well as made additional leases for oil and gas and more than 100 environmental regulations were repealed. It was a clear message that despite having so much delineation, fossil fuel came in the forefront of the policies.
This is also too concerning that America is denying the fact of being the greatest emitter of green house gases. Decades of carbon-intensive manufacturing has contributed in the growth and prosperity of the US. “America First” approach is leading to the mistrust between the developed and developing countries because it is increasing the gap between climate action plan and implementation. It is upsetting the climate diplomacy by reducing the financial aid to the countries that are more affected by the climate change.
In the long run, a second trump administration which is currently being run probably going to intensify this course. At top will be the Inflation Reduction Law that currently encourages in clean energy and carbon reduction. There are already plans to increase the usage of oil and gas as well as lessen the environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency might be significantly reorganized, and funding for federal organizations focused on sustainability might be reduced. In this second term, trump administration already has backed out from Paris agreement once again which led to one of the most important participation in the climate negotiations and international collaboration to be lost. Countries on the verge of taking more aggressive climate action may postpone, reinterpret, or reduce their objectives in the absence of U.S. commitment. International climate financing mechanisms would also be impacted by the loss of U.S. financial and technological support, which would have an impact on ecosystem protection, disaster response, and access to clean energy globally.
If these policies persist till 2028-29, a major harm in environmental condition is awaiting. The risk of crucial 1.5 degrees rise will be unbeatable if US fell behind climate crisis. Conditions for environmental justice communities, which are already overwhelmed by pollution, would deteriorate on a domestic level. Delays in U.S. action could push fragile ecosystems over the edge of recovery on a global scale. Without immediate change, coral reefs, rainforest systems, and Arctic permafrost are already getting close to thresholds that may be irreversible.
Climate change is not a future threat, it is a present emergency. The ideology of "America First" isolates the U.S. from the global reality that environmental survival depends on cooperation. No nation can escape the impacts of a warming planet, no matter its wealth or power. Leadership means accountability. As one of the most influential players on the world stage, the U.S. must accept that its decisions carry consequences far beyond its borders. Another retreat from climate responsibility could cost the world more than it can afford. The time to act collectively is now before we run out of chances.
Way Forward: How world leaders and policymakers can navigate Trump’s climate stance?
World leaders and policymakers can navigate President Trump’s stance on climate by developing international alliances and renewing their commitments to climate action. For instance, the united Kingdom’s Secretary of Energy, Ed Miliband, is engaged with China to discuss energy reforms and measures for reducing carbon emissions. This is in response to the policies of the United States. Furthermore, the cities and states within the United States continue to uphold the Paris Agreement goals which demonstrates substantial commitment to climate measures. Also, world leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to environmental objectives, highlighting the significance of maintaining efforts despite the change in the policy decisions made by the USA. Those in charge of policymaking have the ability to mitigate the impact of adverse national policies on the progress of global climate change by encouraging international cooperation and providing support for local climate actions.
The role of private sector and global alliances in maintaining climate progress:
The private sector and global alliances play a vital role in addressing climate actions, each contributing distinctively to the global effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In order to reduce emissions and sustainability, business encourages clean technologies to cut emissions and pollutions. The agricultural sector is working on developing climate resilience seeds and irrigation technologies. For the purpose of mitigating climate change, global alliance gathers states and organizations together. The Alliances for Climate Action (ACA) is one of the organizations that advocates for the adoption of strong policies and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The global Climate Action Partnership assists both the public and business sectors in working together. This sort of information sharing facilitates these alliances for the development strategies. Such as oil companies in Saudi Aramco, are subject to criticism for their resistance to the use of clean energy. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations have the goal of taking the lead in climate action, but they also have the internal challenge.
In order to find a long-term solution to climate change, private sector and global partnership need to collaborate. Together they will be able to contribute funding and innovation and implementation of climate initiative all around the world.
Call to action for policymakers, activists, and individuals to continue the fight for climate resilience:
The climate crisis demands immediate, unified, and unwavering action from all sectors of society. The severity of climate change’s effects, such as extreme weather, biodiversity loss, sea levels rising and systemic risk to the ecosystems and our economies requires an inclusive and decisive response. Each individual as well as the policymakers and activists, has an important part to play in the process of constructing a future that is both resilient and sustainable. Government and leaders must act with urgency to implement policies that are based on scientific evidence which align with the Paris agreement. The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative emphasizes the necessity of national reforms that consistent with carbon budgets of 1.5 degrees Celsius carbon in order to reduce the risk associated with climate change to mitigate the system. We must enhance carbon reduction objectives, provide a just transition for vulnerable people, incentivize renewable energy, and hold polluters accountable.
However, the foundation of societal transformation continues to be grounded by grassroots movements and climate activism. Activists must collaborate with businesses and policymakers to drive systemic change. Every individual may contribute to climate resilience through sustainable habits. The Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) emphasizes the importance of public participation in the process of formulating climate policy. This participation might take the form of adopting environmentally responsible environmental lifestyles, providing support to responsible businesses or voting for climate leaders.
The time to take action today. The decisions we make today will have a huge impact on the future of our world and the people who will live here after us. Adapting to climate change is not a goal that is distant, rather, it is an urgent imperative that calls for immediate actions form all of us. To ensure that policymakers must enforce bold policies, activists must mobilize and advocate for accountability.it is possible for us to construct a future that is resilient, sustainable and equitable if we work together. It is difficult to turn aside the challenge for our world. We must take a stand, make our voices heard, and take action if we want to ensure our collective future.
America First vs Global Climate Commitments and responsibilities of America
Trumps “America First” approach is more likely a business ideology that focuses more on short term domestic gain rather than long term global gains. Withdrawal from policies like Paris Agreement has shown a possibility of threat of global cooperation. This action showed a deeper irresponsibility toward environment. Trumps policies are based on narrow economic theory that deprives America’s responsibility towards emissions which challenges the environmental crisis in the global corporate level. Fossil fuel lobbying has always been given more importance than scientific validation which leads to the question of America’s acknowledgement of how ecosystems are getting disrupted by climate change of an area. It is to note that emissions from one area like America can affect the climate change scenario of whole world.
Withdrawal from Paris agreement in 2017 shattered the global climate action plans because it wasn’t just a mere decision. It was being implemented based on a narrow economic mindset. As America has a history of being the biggest emitter of GHGs, this action discouraged or lowered the confidence of global leaders on prioritizing the climate action. LCD’s, specifically the global south was much influenced as America’s financial support or influence were helping them get over the climate crisis of which they are the most vulnerable. In the meantime, it became impossible to overlook the impact of this decision as wildfire, floods, sea level rise, habitat loss, biodiversity lose etc. were rising. All because environmental restrictions were dismantled in the US. The US dissolved the scientific panels as well as made additional leases for oil and gas and more than 100 environmental regulations were repealed. It was a clear message that despite having so much delineation, fossil fuel came in the forefront of the policies.
This is also too concerning that America is denying the fact of being the greatest emitter of green house gases. Decades of carbon-intensive manufacturing has contributed in the growth and prosperity of the US. “America First” approach is leading to the mistrust between the developed and developing countries because it is increasing the gap between climate action plan and implementation. It is upsetting the climate diplomacy by reducing the financial aid to the countries that are more affected by the climate change.
In the long run, a second trump administration which is currently being run probably going to intensify this course. At top will be the Inflation Reduction Law that currently encourages in clean energy and carbon reduction. There are already plans to increase the usage of oil and gas as well as lessen the environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency might be significantly reorganized, and funding for federal organizations focused on sustainability might be reduced. In this second term, trump administration already has backed out from Paris agreement once again which led to one of the most important participation in the climate negotiations and international collaboration to be lost. Countries on the verge of taking more aggressive climate action may postpone, reinterpret, or reduce their objectives in the absence of U.S. commitment. International climate financing mechanisms would also be impacted by the loss of U.S. financial and technological support, which would have an impact on ecosystem protection, disaster response, and access to clean energy globally.
If these policies persist till 2028-29, a major harm in environmental condition is awaiting. The risk of crucial 1.5 degrees rise will be unbeatable if US fell behind climate crisis. Conditions for environmental justice communities, which are already overwhelmed by pollution, would deteriorate on a domestic level. Delays in U.S. action could push fragile ecosystems over the edge of recovery on a global scale. Without immediate change, coral reefs, rainforest systems, and Arctic permafrost are already getting close to thresholds that may be irreversible.
Climate change is not a future threat, it is a present emergency. The ideology of "America First" isolates the U.S. from the global reality that environmental survival depends on cooperation. No nation can escape the impacts of a warming planet, no matter its wealth or power. Leadership means accountability. As one of the most influential players on the world stage, the U.S. must accept that its decisions carry consequences far beyond its borders. Another retreat from climate responsibility could cost the world more than it can afford. The time to act collectively is now before we run out of chances.
Comments