Beyond Paris: Forging a New Path for U.S. Climate Leadership
How America can maintain influence despite withdrawal from international agreements
Key Takeaways:
Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement creates a leadership vacuum that other powers like China and the EU will rapidly fill, potentially diminishing U.S. influence in shaping the emerging clean energy economy.
Despite federal retreat, U.S. states, cities, and businesses could collectively achieve 54-62% emissions reductions by 2035, approaching the national target of 61-66%.
The U.S. will remain in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, providing a diplomatic platform to shape climate policy even without Paris Agreement participation.
Economic competitiveness concerns, rather than climate ideology, may ultimately drive bipartisan support for maintaining key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
A diversified strategy of bilateral climate agreements, subnational diplomacy, and targeted international financing could preserve U.S. influence during the Paris Agreement hiatus.
The Climate Diplomacy Pendulum Swings Again
On January 20, 2025, in one of his first official acts after returning to the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—again. This second exit from the global climate accord mirrored his 2017 decision and reinstated a pattern of climate policy whiplash that has become a hallmark of changing administrations. While the withdrawal won't take effect immediately—the Paris Agreement requires a full year for a country to formally exit—it signals a dramatic shift in America's approach to international climate diplomacy.
The consequences are potentially far-reaching. Once the withdrawal takes effect in January 2026, the United States will stand nearly alone, joining an exclusive club of just three other nations outside the climate agreement. This isolation creates a peculiar paradox: the world's largest historical emitter and second-largest current producer of greenhouse gases will have no formal voice in the primary international framework designed to address the climate crisis.
Yet the landscape of climate politics, both domestic and international, has evolved significantly since Trump's first withdrawal. Clean energy economics have fundamentally transformed, subnational climate commitments have deepened, and international power dynamics have shifted. These changes suggest that America's climate influence need not disappear with its Paris membership. This article examines how the United States might forge alternative pathways for climate leadership—or at minimum, protect its interests—during a period of federal disengagement from formal international climate architecture.
The Changed Climate Landscape
Trump's first Paris withdrawal in 2017 sent shockwaves through the international community. His second withdrawal arrives in a markedly different context. At that time, nearly every nation expressed disappointment or regret at America's exit. Even Russia and Poland, nations not known for climate enthusiasm, failed to publicly support the U.S. decision. This universal condemnation reflected the precariousness of the then-nascent agreement.
Today's Paris Agreement stands on firmer ground. The accord has weathered previous U.S. absence and matured into a functional framework with implementation mechanisms, transparency guidelines, and regular stocktaking processes. International climate finance, while still insufficient, has developed beyond what existed in 2017, with the recent COP28 agreement establishing a new global climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
Domestically, the clean energy landscape has transformed dramatically. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed in 2022, represents the most ambitious climate policy package in U.S. history. Its implementation is already demonstrating economic benefits across states and Congressional districts, creating constituencies with vested interests in maintaining clean energy investments. Economic rather than environmental logic may ultimately limit how much of this legislation Trump can dismantle.
The U.S. federalist system also offers a crucial distinction from centralized governance models. The 24 states comprising the U.S. Climate Alliance represent 54% of the U.S. population and 57% of the economy, and many have enacted ambitious climate policies independent of federal direction. California, which would rank as the world's fifth-largest economy if independent, has just approved a $10 billion climate bond and reinforced its Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Most importantly, the executive order initiating withdrawal from Paris notably does not withdraw the U.S. from the underlying United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This deliberate distinction maintains America's seat at broader climate negotiations and preserves diplomatic channels that would be severed by a complete exit.
A Federalist Approach to Climate Diplomacy
America's complex federal system—often criticized for its inefficiency—may prove a surprising asset in climate diplomacy during the Paris hiatus. While national emissions targets (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs) are formally submitted by federal governments, their implementation frequently depends on subnational action. This creates space for what might be called "federalist climate diplomacy."
States like California and New York have already established independent international climate partnerships and joined transnational networks like the Under2 Coalition. These relationships could expand and deepen during federal disengagement, creating parallel tracks of climate cooperation outside formal channels. California Governor Newsom has already announced a special legislative session to "safeguard California values" in climate policy ahead of Trump's return to office.
This approach finds powerful precedent in recent history. During Trump's first term, the "America Is All In" coalition of states, cities, and businesses maintained robust international engagement on climate. Recent modeling suggests that with enhanced ambition, non-federal actors could achieve 54-62% emissions reductions by 2035—approaching the Biden administration's target of 61-66%, even in the face of federal policy rollbacks.
This federalist model extends beyond states to major corporations, many of which have established science-based emissions targets that transcend national borders. American multinationals face pressure from European regulatory frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive regardless of U.S. federal policy. The resulting corporate climate commitments create additional channels for maintaining U.S. engagement in global climate efforts.
The Economics of Clean Energy Transcend Politics
A crucial difference between 2017 and 2025 is the transformed economic landscape for clean energy. The IRA has accelerated America's clean energy transition through tax credits and investments that are proving politically difficult to unwind. Clean energy manufacturing facilities are disproportionately located in Republican-leaning districts, creating constituencies with economic interests in maintaining these policies regardless of climate politics.
The economic momentum extends globally. China now dominates clean energy supply chains, leading the world in renewable energy installation while also remaining the largest emitter. European firms are rapidly advancing clean technology development under the European Green Deal. This global clean energy race creates competitive pressure that transcends the Paris Agreement and may constrain Trump's ability to fully reverse course.
Economic analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that modifying rather than eliminating IRA provisions would remain the most fiscally prudent approach, even under conservative governance. While the analysis finds that none of the modeled policy scenarios would fully achieve the U.S. Paris target of 50-52% emissions reduction by 2030, carbon fee policies could achieve those levels between 2030 and 2035.
The market forces propelling clean energy may ultimately prove more durable than political declarations. David Waskow of the World Resources Institute notes that exiting Paris could isolate the U.S. from emerging clean energy and green technology markets, potentially undermining Trump's broader economic ambitions.
UNFCCC Membership: A Strategic Platform
Trump's decision to maintain U.S. membership in the UNFCCC while withdrawing from Paris provides a critical openingfor maintaining diplomatic influence. The 1992 framework convention, which established the international climate negotiation process, continues to provide the United States with voting rights in the Conference of Parties and maintains reporting obligations that ensure transparency.
This continued membership offers several strategic advantages. First, it preserves America's seat at broader climate negotiations, allowing U.S. diplomats to shape discussions even while formally outside the Paris implementation process. Second, it maintains institutional relationships with international climate bodies that would be severed by complete withdrawal. Third, it simplifies potential re-entry to the Paris Agreement under a future administration, avoiding the more complex ratification process that would be required after complete UNFCCC withdrawal.
U.S. diplomats could strategically leverage this position to influence climate negotiations from the periphery, focusing on areas of overlapping interest with the administration's priorities. These might include technology standards, transparency mechanisms, or market-based approaches that align with conservative economic principles.
Bilateral Climate Diplomacy: A Path Forward
With multilateral engagement constrained, bilateral climate agreements offer an alternative pathway for maintaining U.S. influence. Such agreements can be tailored to specific national interests and framed around economic competition, energy security, or technological cooperation rather than explicit climate objectives.
This approach aligns with the Trump administration's stated preference for bilateral over multilateral agreements. It also builds on precedent—the U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action demonstrated that bilateral climate cooperation can continue even amid broader geopolitical tensions. Similar agreements could be crafted with key partners like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and African nations.
Bilateral approaches offer additional flexibility. They can focus on specific sectors like clean energy, forest conservation, or methane reduction rather than economy-wide emissions targets. They can emphasize technology transfer and market access over prescriptive regulations. And they can incorporate trade considerations that align with the administration's economic priorities.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies has documented extensively how the flexibility of the Paris Agreement regarding domestic policy means that market-based approaches with bipartisan support could still form the basis of U.S. climate action. This pragmatic approach could shape bilateral agreements that maintain U.S. influence without the constraints of Paris membership.
The Leadership Vacuum and Geopolitical Consequences
America's Paris exit creates a leadership vacuum that other powers will eagerly fill. China and the European Union, already positioned as climate leaders during Trump's first term, will likely assume greater influence in shaping international climate finance, technology standards, and carbon market mechanisms. This shift carries significant geopolitical implications beyond climate policy.
Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO of World Resources Institute, warns that "Walking away from the Paris Agreement won't protect Americans from climate impacts, but it will hand China and the European Union a competitive edge in the booming clean energy economy and lead to fewer opportunities for American workers." This economic disadvantage compounds the diplomatic isolation.
The geopolitical consequences extend beyond economics. Climate vulnerability increasingly shapes migration patterns, security threats, and humanitarian crises. Nations at the frontlines of climate impacts—particularly in Africa, Southeast Asia, and small island states—will likely deepen relationships with powers offering climate finance and adaptation support. China's Belt and Road Initiative already provides infrastructure financing to many climate-vulnerable nations; a U.S. absence from climate diplomacy creates space for expanding this influence.
European powers face their own challenges but will likely intensify climate diplomacy to fill the American void. The EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and corporate sustainability requirements already extend European regulatory influence globally. These mechanisms will shape market access for American firms regardless of U.S. Paris participation.
A Diversified Climate Strategy
Given these constraints and opportunities, the United States could pursue a diversified climate strategy that maintains influence despite formal Paris withdrawal. This approach would recognize that climate action occurs across multiple tracks—technological, economic, diplomatic, and subnational—creating opportunities even when the federal government steps back from formal commitments.
First, the U.S. could maintain targeted international climate finance through existing institutions like the World Bank and regional development banks. Even modest financing maintains relationships with climate-vulnerable nations and provides leverage in other diplomatic priorities. The Trump administration could reframe such financing as economic development assistance or energy infrastructure support rather than explicit climate aid.
Second, diplomatic resources could shift toward technology partnerships focused on areas of American advantage—grid modernization, advanced nuclear, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen. These initiatives support U.S. economic competitiveness while maintaining engagement on low-carbon solutions without explicit emissions targets.
Third, trade policy could incorporate climate considerations through standards harmonization, targeted tariff reductions for clean technologies, and protection for American manufacturers facing carbon border adjustments from European partners. This approach positions climate action as trade advantage rather than environmental regulation.
Fourth, the State Department could establish dedicated engagement with subnational and private sector actors pursuing climate initiatives, creating coordination mechanisms that maintain U.S. influence in international forums despite federal disengagement. This approach recognizes the reality that states, cities and businesses collectively represent America's climate action regardless of federal policy.
Finally, U.S. diplomats at the UNFCCC could advocate for market-based mechanisms, transparency frameworks, and technology-neutral approaches that align with conservative economic principles while maintaining America's voice in global climate governance. The flexibility of the Paris Agreement regarding domestic policy means the administration could claim a "better deal" through reformulated approaches rather than complete rejection.
The Climate Pendulum and America's Long Game
The pendulum of American climate policy swings with each administration change, creating uncertainty for international partners and domestic stakeholders alike. This pattern seems likely to continue, with the possibility of re-entry to the Paris Agreement under a future administration. The challenge for U.S. climate diplomacy is maintaining sufficient engagement during withdrawal periods to enable effective leadership when the pendulum swings back.
The Climate Action Tracker currently rates U.S. climate policies as consistent with 2°C of warming when compared to modeled domestic emissions pathways, but not yet aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C temperature limit. Recent modeling suggests that even with robust subnational action, federal policy engagement remains essential for meeting America's climate targets.
This reality creates both urgency and opportunity. By maintaining engagement through alternative channels during Paris withdrawal, the United States preserves institutional relationships and diplomatic mechanisms that would facilitate future re-engagement. By supporting subnational and private sector climate initiatives, it maintains momentum that could accelerate federal action when political conditions shift.
The most sophisticated approach recognizes that climate diplomacy, like climate change itself, operates on multiple timescales simultaneously. While formal U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement may cycle with administrations, American influence in shaping the global response to climate change need not follow the same pattern. By diversifying engagement channels, focusing on economic and technological leadership, and leveraging the federalist system, the United States can play a long game in climate diplomacy that transcends the presidential cycle.
In this moment of federal retreat, the enduring strength of American institutions—from state governments to private enterprises, research universities to civil society—offers resilience that centralized systems lack. The resulting climate federalism may prove not just a stopgap during Paris withdrawal, but a more durable model for maintaining U.S. climate leadership across administrations. As the world confronts the mounting impacts of climate change, this institutional resilience may ultimately prove America's most valuable contribution to global climate governance.