Hours after reclaiming the presidency, Donald Trump moved swiftly on Monday to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement and unleash a barrage of executive orders aimed at dismantling US climate policy, boosting fossil fuel production, and undercutting green energy technologies.

The sweeping actions, which are expected to trigger months of legal challenges from states, cities, and environmental groups test the limits of executive authority to reshape national climate policy. They also mark a dramatic reversal of American climate action that threatens to undermine global efforts to combat warming.

The actions, including orders to clear the way for fossil fuel infrastructure expansion and eliminate government support for clean energy technologies from electric cars to wind power, will once again make the United States one of only four nations — alongside Iran, Libya and Yemen — to stand outside the landmark Paris climate accord signed by 196 countries.

“The United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values,” Trump said in one executive order, describing the Paris agreement as a “rip-off.”

Trump also terminated the US International Climate Finance Plan, ending American support for developing nations fighting climate change. The move cuts off $9.5 billion in annual climate funding — representing just 0.147% of the U.S. federal budget — that the Biden administration had scaled up from $1.5 billion to support frameworks like the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility.

“These agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people,” Trump said.

CO2 emissions from Trump policies could ‘negate’ global clean energy gains

The withdrawal process will take a year to complete, but its effects could be far more immediate and lasting. An analysis by Carbon Brief projects that a second Trump term would generate an additional four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over four years — enough to negate “twice over” all the emissions reductions achieved through global clean energy deployment in the past five years.

And that comes against the specter of a rapidly warming climate.  Earlier this month, the EU Copernicus weather service declared 2024 the hottest year on record and the first to breach the 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold that the Paris agreement aimed to prevent. Scientists warn the world is now tracking toward 3.1 degrees of heating by century’s end, risking catastrophic impacts for billions around the globe.

The orders represent a sharp departure from the Biden administration’s climate agenda. In December, President Biden unveiled plans to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% by 2035 and had increased American international climate funding sixfold to $9.5 billion annually.

Trump’s directive also freezes all US foreign development aid for 90 days, citing a “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy” that he claims works against American interests. The freeze could affect critical programs like the World Food Programme, where the United States serves as the largest donor, at a time when climate-related drought and hunger is on the rise, along with conflicted-related hotspots such as Gaza and Sudan.

Swift international criticism

The Trump administration’s moves drew swift international criticism, particularly from developing nations that are most vulnerable to climate impacts while contributing least to global emissions.

“This threatens to reverse hard-won gains in reducing emissions and puts our vulnerable countries at greater risk,” said Evans Njewa, chair of the Least Developed Countries group, which represents 45 nations and 1.1 billion people. The bloc’s members account for less than 1% of global emissions despite comprising about 14% of the world’s population.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, European leaders vowed to maintain their climate commitments even without American participation.

“All continents will have to deal with the growing burden of climate change. Its impact is impossible to ignore,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president. “The Paris Agreement continues to be humanity’s best hope. Europe will stay the course.”

Human health toll of US withdrawal

The human health cost of the US withdrawal could be severe. The World Health Organization estimates that urgent climate action could save two million lives annually, including over one million from reduced air pollution alone. And with every degree of temperature increase, approximately one billion people will be pushed outside the climate niche where humans have lived for millenia.

“The most tragic consequences will be felt in developing countries,” said Harjeet Singh, policy lead at the Fossil Fuels Non-Proliferation Treaty. “These vulnerable nations and communities, which have contributed the least to global emissions, will bear the brunt of intensifying floods, rising seas and crippling droughts.”

The World Economic Forum estimates the global cost of climate change damage will reach between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion annually by 2050. But Simon Stiell, head of the United Nations climate body UNFCCC, warned at Davos that climate concerns are being overshadowed by other global crises.

“We only seem to have the attention span for one crisis at a time,” Stiell said. “The science behind climate hasn’t changed, the impacts actually have changed, in that they are getting worse and worse.”

No country followed the United States in abandoning the Paris Agreement during Trump’s first withdrawal in 2017, which took three years to complete and was immediately reversed when President Biden took office in 2021. But climate experts also worry that a second US exit could have broader ripple effects on global climate cooperation and financing at a crucial moment for planetary action.

G20 president Cyril Ramaphosa, also speaking from Davos, captured the mounting concern: “This is a time of rising geological geopolitical tensions, unilateralism, nationalism, protectionism and isolation… Yet this is a moment when we should be standing together as the global community. We are called upon by the exigency of the moments to act together with greater urgency to halt the destruction of our planet.”

Withdrawing from Paris Agreement was just the beginning

The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was just the tip of the melting iceberg of Trump’s energy and climate policy overhaul. In a series of executive orders, he declared a “national energy emergency” and vowed to “unleash American energy,” despite the fact that the United States isn’t facing energy shortages at all.

In fact, the Biden administration had already let both oil and natural gas production rise to historic highs. Throughout Biden’s term, the US, the world’s largest historical GHG emitter, remained second-largest emitter behind China. Trump, however, claimed that “climate extremism has exploded inflation and overburdened businesses with regulation.”

His orders included lifting moratoriums on natural gas export permits and approving oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of America’s last pristine wilderness areas.

Trump also ordered a freeze on offshore wind development, stating “we’re not doing that wind thing,” while directing federal agencies to expedite fossil fuel infrastructure projects and freeze Biden-era funding for clean energy technologies.

“We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have, the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it,” Trump declared in his inaugural address. “We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it.”

The push for increased production comes at an uncertain time for global energy markets. International oil demand has plateaued, and many American energy companies have expressed reluctance to significantly boost output, concerned that oversupply could drive down prices and squeeze profits. US oil prices fell around 1% on Monday as details about Trump’s energy plans emerged.

Fossil fuel industry celebrates

The fossil fuel industry, which donated $75 million to Trump’s campaign, celebrated the policy changes at a gathering in the Hay-Adams Hotel attended by leading oil and gas executives and hosted by Harold Hamm, the billionaire founder of Continental Resources, the New York Times reported.

American fossil fuel companies have known about climate change impacts for over five decades while publicly downplaying risks and advocating for continued production. Global fossil fuel companies have recorded a combined $3 billion in profits every day for the past 50 years.

“American success relies on American chemistry,” said Chris Jahn, President of the American Chemistry Council, a powerful lobby group representing fossil fuel and petrochemical manufacturers including ExxonMobil and Chevron. “Working with the Trump Administration and 119th Congress we can expand US chemical production and help keep America strong.”

Trump’s cabinet nominations further signal his fossil fuel agenda. His pick for Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, heads the world’s largest fracking company and has declared on LinkedIn that “there is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either.” The president himself has previously called climate change a “hoax” orchestrated by China.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump has nominated Lee Zeldin, who during eight years in Congress consistently opposed environmental and climate policies. Zeldin has already outlined plans to reduce regulations, including air pollution standards.

In parallel, a rollback of energy efficiency regulations on everything from dishwashers to vehicle tailpipe emissions standards was also part of Monday’s executive orders – effectively allowing the production of more polluting vehicles. Monday’s executive orders also repealed Biden-era subsidies for electric vehicles — decisions that clean air advocates say could have serious public health implications.

AI and tech applications demand more power

But even if the country appears to be awash in oil and gas, the declaration of a “national energy emergency”, however, was also being driven by another sector – the soaring power demands of technology, including artificial intelligence (AI).

After 15 years of relative stability, US energy demand is surging, driven largely by the proliferation of data centres as tech giants race to develop increasingly powerful AI systems. The US data centre boom has stretched the country’s dated power grids, delayed the retirement of coal plants and catalysed concerns that: America is running out of power.

Global projections suggest data centre energy consumption could reach 1,580 terawatt hours by 2034, roughly equivalent to the total electricity usage of India, the world’s most populous nation. This would make data centers collectively the world’s third-largest energy consumer, outpacing the 27-member European Union, if they were counted as a country.

Already today, data centres worldwide consume more electricity combined than all but 15 countries globally.  US data centres will comprise 8% of national electricity usage by 2035, according to an analysis by Goldman Sachs, which described the boom as “the kind of electricity growth that hasn’t been seen in a generation.”

A White House official speaking to reporters on Monday confirmed that the energy emergency declaration was partly motivated by viewing AI as a national security priority and the resulting need to expand the energy grid. The administration’s focus on AI was underscored by the announcement of $500 billion in new funding for artificial intelligence development — more than 55 times the amount cut from international climate finance.

Tech oligarchs stand to benefit

At the inauguration ceremony, a row of tech industry billionaires including Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman occupied prime seats in the Capital Rotunda, positioned more prominently than several incoming cabinet members.

The seven tech leaders present at the inauguration standing to benefit from the mass expansion of US power consumption command a combined personal fortune of $371.9 billion — enough to fund more than a year of global climate finance commitments. Their companies’ combined annual revenue of $1.39 trillion dwarfs the world’s promised climate funding target of $300 billion agreed in November at COP30 in Baku by nearly five times.

States and cities vow to fight back

Even so, the sweeping executive orders issued in Mr. Trump’s first hours as president are already facing resistance, with questions emerging about both their legal standing and economic wisdom.

Legal experts suggest the “national energy emergency” declaration could face court challenges if the administration cannot demonstrate conditions that justify bypassing standard environmental review procedures. But the more immediate resistance will come from within the United States itself.

America Is All In, a climate coalition representing nearly two-thirds of the US population and three-quarters of US GDP, has pledged to maintain climate action despite the federal retreat. According to Public Citizen, state and local government initiatives alone could achieve nearly 75% of US climate goals under the Paris Agreement.

“By leaving the Paris Agreement, this Administration is abdicating its responsibility to protect the American people and our national security,” said Gina McCarthy, co-chair of the alliance and former national climate advisor to President Biden. “But rest assured, our states, cities, businesses, and local institutions stand ready to pick up the baton of US climate leadership.”

Abandoning climate leadership could be costly to the US in the long run

Critics also argue that abandoning climate leadership could prove costly to the US in the emerging global green economy. With sustainable production projected to triple to $2 trillion by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency, many analysts increasingly view the shift toward clean energy as irreversible, driven by falling costs and improving technology.

As the US reverses course, the European Union and China continue to accelerate their transition to cleaner and greener technologies. France recently achieved 95% renewable power on its grid in 2024 as nuclear and clean energy sources displaced fossil fuels. China has leveraged massive state investment to dominate the renewable energy supply chain, while the E.U. has implemented ambitious emissions reduction targets and green technology incentives.

China has already established dominance through state investment, controlling over 80% of solar panel production – including half of US domestic production – and 76% of electric vehicle manufacturing. The country has cornered the market on rare earth minerals crucial for green technology, managing 70% of extraction and 90% of processing, according to Oxford University research.

Walking away from the Paris Agreement will hand China and EU a competitive edge

“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,” said Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute.

“If the Trump administration truly wants America to lead the global economy, become energy independent, and create good-paying American jobs,” Ms. McCarthy added, “then they must stay focused on growing our clean energy industry. And if they want to be tough on China, don’t punish US automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean car keys to the Chinese.”

 ‘Red’ states could oppose Trump’s plans to rollback IRA investments

Trump’s ability to completely unwind America’s climate initiatives faces significant obstacles in another, unexpected quarter – and that is among US states that have benefited from federally-subsidized investments in electric car production and renewable energy grids, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Biden administration has already finalized contracts for $96.7 billion — or 84% — of the law’s clean energy grants. These include $8.8 billion for state energy-efficiency programs, $3 billion for reducing port pollution, and $9 billion to help rural electric providers transition from fossil fuels to alternatives like wind, solar, and nuclear power.

While approximately $11 billion in grants remain unfinalized, including funds for agricultural conservation and pollution reduction in disadvantaged communities, the law’s implementation is well advanced.

So his executive order for federal agencies to pause and review grant spending under the Inflation Reduction Act may have come too late to have its intended effect.

Even more significantly, 85% of the IRA’s funding has been invested in majority-Republican districts, drawing new firms and jobs to economically underprivileged areas. That, observers say, creates a potential political firewall against attempts to undo the legislation.

The economic stakes are also considerable. Analysis by Johns Hopkins University suggests that unwinding US climate policies could result in $50 billion in lost revenue for US companies and up to $80 billion in lost investment opportunities that competing nations stand ready to capture. This economic reality, combined with the IRA’s bipartisan benefits, may make a full repeal politically unpalatable, even if the administration pushes for one.

 “The community that believes in, endorses, underpins that [climate] science is far, far more significant than those few voices that challenge,” Stiell, the UNFCCC chief, said. “The science has been weaponized, and that’s reflective of the politics.”

Image Credits: Flickr: Radek Kucharski, UNEP, Carbon Brief , James St. John, Investigate Midwest.