The United States’ climate retreat is no longer symbolic

The global climate change regime has taken several blows from the United States under President Donald Trump’s leadership. What initially appeared as familiar climate scepticism has now translated into a systematic retreat from climate governance institutions, financial mechanisms, and scientific infrastructure. Taken together, these actions raise serious concerns about the future resilience of the global climate regime.

The first set of blows came in the form of institutional withdrawals. The United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, followed by its exit from the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These withdrawals were not isolated incidents; rather, they reflected a broader political worldview in which climate change was dismissed as a hoax and global climate governance was framed as incompatible with US sovereignty and economic interests.

Each of these exits carries long-term repercussions. Climate governance operates on coordination, trust, and shared responsibility. When one of the world’s largest carbon emitters walks away from the core institutions of the regime, it weakens the collective framework designed to address a global problem. Before these withdrawals could even settle into the background of global politics, the US Budget for FY 2026-27 launched yet another

blow — this time targeting the financial and scientific foundations of climate action. The President’s budget proposal includes deep cuts to climate action, energy transition, and climate research programs. Importantly, many of these proposals have received either explicit or tacit approval from Congress.

This marks a shift from symbolic disengagement to material disruption. Among all the proposed cuts, the most critical is the $275 million cut to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Climate Investment Funds (CIF).

The congressional appropriations document is silent on both GEF and CIF. In budgetary politics, silence often speaks louder than words. The absence of any dedicated appropriation strongly suggests acceptance of the proposed cut, at least for FY-2026. While this does not amount to a permanent repeal, it effectively dries up US financial contributions to these funds for the current fiscal cycle. This matters because GEF and CIF play a central role in global climate action.

GEF functions as the financial mechanism for biodiversity and desertification conventions and as an operating entity under the UN climate framework. CIFs, meanwhile, have been instrumental in supporting large-scale mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries through concessional finance. Together, these funds channel resources into on-ground climate action, particularly in the Global South, where capacity and finance gaps remain significant.

The implications are serious. Climate change is a global challenge not only in terms of reducing emissions but also in building resilience to climate impacts. Adaptation, capacity building, and technology transfer require coordination between developed and developing countries. Financial flows from developed countries act as oxygen for climate action on the ground. When those flows are interrupted, the burden shifts disproportionately onto countries that are least responsible for the crisis.

The GEF — CIF cut is also not happening in isolation. The same budget proposes cuts across several climate-sensitive sectors. Environmental Justice programs at the Environmental Protection Agency have been eliminated, a move that Congress has effectively accepted by not funding them as distinct line items. Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grants have been defunded.

The Atmospheric Protection Program has disappeared from the budget altogether. Clean energy funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been partially clawed back, with Congress reducing IIJA funding from $66.1 billion to $43.7 billion, although this applies only to unobligated balances.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs have survived, but in a narrowed form focused on early-stage research rather than deployment. Funding for climate research under the Department of Energy’s Office of Science has been reduced, though not eliminated. Congress has resisted some proposals — most notably cuts to refugee and humanitarian assistance — but on climate and energy, the overall direction is clear: contraction rather than expansion.

These repeated actions risk triggering a domino effect. Climate finance depends on burden-sharing and signalling. When a major donor retreats, other countries may reassess their own contributions. This is particularly dangerous at a time when climate finance has become the central issue in global climate negotiations. The last two COP conferences have focused heavily on finance — whether through discussions on the New Collective Quantified Goal, adaptation finance, or loss and damage. If the United States succeeds in diluting climate finance commitments while the regime is already under stress, the cumulative impact could be severe.

A line of scholarship has long argued that US disengagement should not be overstated, pointing out that the United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and has repeatedly failed to meet its climate commitments. From this perspective, the Paris Agreement withdrawal appeared as continuity rather than rupture. However, this line failed to anticipate the scale of the current retreat. Withdrawal from the UNFCCC and IPCC was not foreseen.What makes the present moment unprecedented is the depth and breadth of the budget cuts being proposed for climate action and energy transition. This is no longer passive non-compliance; it is an active attempt to weaken the financial and scientific pillars of the climate regime.

The author works as Research Associate at Chintan Research Foundation; views are personal