The US is one of the largest greenhouse gas (GHGs) emitters historically. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump, on beginning his second term of office, signed a series of executive orders which have great implications on future diplomatic and international climate policies. One of the most debated and predicted is withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

The Paris Agreement is a globally binding treaty with nearly 195 state memberships. It aims at lowering the global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, adapting to the adverse effects of climate change, and mobilising adequate finance in this regard. The withdrawal decision would have severe long-term impacts on the global climate policy landscape, especially in the context of new collective quantified goals (NCQG) and nationally determined contributions – NDC 3.0. Finance is central to achieving the climate goals and ensuring the enjoyment of human rights for people from the least developed countries (LDCs) and the small island developing states (SIDS).

In 2019, the Trump administration, during his first tenure, removed the US from the Paris Agreement, which Biden rejoined in 2021. The first withdrawal of the US was effective for a period of four months, which demonstrated unpredictability and uncertainty in the leadership of a global response towards climate change. Therefore, the current executive order expressing withdrawal from a global treaty regime reflects a backward lens in climate governance. With the second withdrawal decision, the US has become one of the four countries who are not members of the Paris regime. Such withdrawal will take effect after a year from the date of its notification. It would have devastating impacts on the global temperature rise and its associated risks. In 2022, the 6^th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that limiting the global temperature below 1.5°C is not feasible without adopting more stringent climate action. The World Meteorological Organisation confirmed that 2024 was the warmest year on record. It faced various extreme weather events around the world which led to several existential risks, marginalising peoples from the LDCs and the SIDS. Their several human rights, e.g. food, are affected due to climate-associated risks. At this crucial moment, countries should work together to address the negative impacts of climate change in those vulnerable countries.  However, the US is stepping back in its role as a global leader.

Under the NCQG, COP29 is committed to mobilising USD 300 billion annually by 2035. Statistics show that the US has been one of the influential donors among others to the global climate finance architecture (e.g. Green Climate Fund). What will happen in climate finance flows, after a year with the withdrawal being effective, is a matter of concern for future COPs. On the other hand, nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are the national commitments made by Parties to be communicated, in achieving their respective goals. It is a core national document consisting of countries’ respective emissions and adaptation targets. Parties committed to submit NDCs 3.0 in 2025 with clearer and stronger commitments for 2035. The deadline is approaching and only a few countries have submitted their new commitments. Countries enlisted as Annex I/ developed countries in the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) who have submitted their NDCs 3.0, are the UK, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Some influential countries have not responded yet. For example, though Australia is bidding to host COP31 in conjunction with other Pacific countries, Australia has not submitted its second NDCs. Many LDCs or SIDs or other developing countries also have not communicated to the UNFCCC registry with their updated NDCs. Climate finance and NDCs have an intrinsic relationship in accelerating global response. Overall, the scenario depicts that the withdrawal of the US might have influenced countries to rethink the setting of their national commitments.

Scholars hope to see continued climate leadership from other countries, such as China. The long-term effects on climate finance flows resulting from the US non-participation are yet to be witnessed at future COPs. Let us see what holds in the future of global climate governance towards ensuring an equal world with the full enjoyment of basic human rights.