The United States officially exited the Paris Agreement on January 27, 2026, marking the second time the nation has withdrawn from the international accord aimed at combating climate change. The move, initiated by the Trump administration roughly a year prior, positions the U.S. Alongside Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only countries not party to the agreement, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Although nations choosing to remain outside of collective decarbonization efforts is not unprecedented – Russia, for example, remains a signatory but with limited emissions targets – the U.S. Withdrawal is accompanied by a more assertive strategy of actively discouraging other nations from pursuing ambitious climate policies. This approach, described by former Vice President Al Gore last year as “climate bullying,” involves leveraging U.S. Economic and political power to pressure countries into scaling back their climate ambitions.
A recent example of this strategy occurred in October 2025, when the U.S. Intervened to block proposed fees on emissions from international shipping at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The U.S. State Department characterized these levies as the UN’s first “global carbon tax.” According to reports, the U.S. Threatened tariffs against countries supporting the measure and revoked visas for diplomats from those nations, ultimately leading to its defeat. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the action as putting “America FIRST” and warned of a “larger” coalition ready to oppose future similar initiatives in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
This is not an isolated incident. The United States has a long history of attempting to impede international climate policy, dating back to at least 1989, and has frequently collaborated with oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia to weaken UN climate reports. Even under the Obama administration, the U.S. Threatened the European Union in 2011 with repercussions if it did not reconsider applying its emissions pricing scheme to flights to and from Europe, ultimately prompting the EU to back down.
However, the current administration’s actions represent a significant escalation. President Trump has consistently dismissed climate change as a “hoax” and expressed skepticism towards renewable energy, framing it as detrimental to the “free world.” This perspective fuels a transactional approach to international climate regulations, prioritizing U.S. Economic interests above all else.
Competition with China is a key driver of this policy. China has emerged as a dominant force in the production of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, permanent magnets, and electric vehicles. The White House views policies promoting green technologies as a “jobs program for China,” as stated by former Trump climate and energy advisor George David Banks. The administration fears that a global shift towards clean energy will benefit China’s economy at the expense of U.S. Fossil fuel industries.
This dynamic was evident in a recent trade dispute with Canada, where Trump threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff if Canada proceeded with a trade deal allowing the import of 49,000 electric vehicles annually at a reduced tariff rate. Trump explicitly stated his intention to prevent Canada from becoming a “drop off port” for goods from China, effectively deterring the availability of affordable EVs in Canada.
The proliferation of climate policies with extraterritorial impact, such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports, presents further opportunities for U.S. Pressure. The Trump administration is unlikely to accept these measures without resistance, particularly as the EU is expected to fall short of its commitment to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. Energy as part of a 2025 trade framework. The White House has already requested “additional flexibilities” in the CBAM implementation to benefit U.S. Exporters.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently exerted pressure on the International Energy Agency to retract a forecast predicting an imminent peak in global oil demand, signaling a continued effort to influence international energy projections. Rubio has also warned that any future UN efforts to advance binding climate measures will be met with similar aggressive tactics.
The U.S. Possesses a range of tools to escalate its opposition to other countries’ climate efforts, including its dominance of the international financial system. Countries perceived as aligning against U.S. Interests, such as Argentina, could face reduced access to financial assistance, while climate leaders like Colombia could be subjected to sanctions. The U.S. May also link climate policy to trade and security considerations, as evidenced by previous threats to EU trade talks over green regulations and suggestions to condition NATO protection on support for U.S. Fossil fuel purchases.
The most drastic measure would be imposing sanctions on Chinese producers of green technologies or threatening secondary sanctions against those who do business with them, a tactic previously employed against Iran. While considered a risky move due to potential Chinese retaliation, the administration could attempt to justify such measures on national security grounds, citing concerns about connected devices manufactured in authoritarian states.
Countries facing U.S. Pressure have limited options. Smaller nations risk damaging their economies by challenging U.S. Policies, as demonstrated by the threats reportedly used at the IMO to coerce Caribbean nations into withdrawing their support for the carbon levy. Larger allies, like the EU and Japan, may prioritize securing U.S. Energy or defense equipment over pursuing ambitious climate goals. The EU, under pressure from the U.S. And Qatar, recently modified a due diligence law aimed at addressing environmental issues in supply chains.
