Trump Administration Pressures Nations to Withdraw UN Climate Resolution/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration is urging countries to press Vanuatu to withdraw a U.N. climate resolution calling for stronger action and potential reparations. U.S. officials argue the proposal could harm American industry and overreach international law. The move marks another step in the administration’s retreat from global climate agreements.
Trump Administration Opposes UN Climate Proposal Quick Looks
- U.S. objects to Vanuatu-backed U.N. climate draft resolution.
- Proposal stems from International Court of Justice advisory opinion.
- Calls for national climate plans and possible reparations.
- State Department says measure threatens U.S. industry.
- U.S. recently revoked key climate science finding.
- Debate intensifies over global climate accountability.
Deep Look: Trump Administration Pressures Nations to Withdraw UN Climate Resolution
The Trump administration is lobbying governments worldwide to push a Pacific island nation to withdraw a United Nations draft resolution that calls for stronger global action on climate change — including the possibility of reparations for countries harmed by climate inaction.
In a diplomatic cable sent to U.S. embassies and consulates, the State Department said it “strongly objects” to the proposal, which is currently circulating among the 193-member U.N. General Assembly. The cable, obtained by The Associated Press, warned that adoption of the measure “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
The guidance reflects the latest step in the administration’s broader retreat from international climate commitments. Just days earlier, the government revoked a long-standing scientific finding that underpinned federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Last month, the U.S. also announced plans to withdraw from the U.N. climate treaty that forms the basis for global climate negotiations.
The Resolution and Its Origins
The draft resolution is sponsored by Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather. It stems from a landmark advisory opinion issued last July by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
In that opinion, the U.N.’s top court stated that countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take meaningful action to combat climate change. It also said nations suffering harm from climate impacts could be entitled to reparations.
Although ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant political weight. The draft resolution seeks to translate the court’s findings into “concrete multinational action.”
Specifically, it calls on countries to adopt national climate plans consistent with limiting global temperature increases to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and provide “full and prompt reparation” for climate-related damage if found in violation of international obligations. The measure would also create an International Register of Damage to document evidence and claims.
Vanuatu’s U.N. Ambassador Odo Tevi has said the resolution aims to ensure that the ICJ’s legal clarity strengthens global cooperation and accountability.
U.S. Objections
The State Department cable characterizes the resolution as an example of “U.N. overreach,” accusing the measure of attempting to assign blame and create legal obligations that countries have not explicitly accepted.
“President Trump has delivered a very clear message: that the U.N. and many nations of the world have gone wildly off track,” the cable states, arguing that climate change is being exaggerated as the world’s greatest threat.
The document instructs U.S. diplomats to encourage other nations to press Vanuatu to withdraw the draft. It describes the proposal as “even more problematic” than the ICJ opinion itself.
According to the cable, several major economies — including other Group of Seven nations, as well as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia — have indicated concerns about aspects of the draft resolution.
Global Reaction
Climate advocates have strongly criticized the U.S. stance.
Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, urged governments to support the resolution and fulfill their obligation to protect human rights by addressing environmental threats.
“Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus,” he said.
Candy Ofime, a climate justice researcher and legal adviser at Amnesty International, described the draft as an attempt to transform the ICJ’s interpretation into a roadmap for accountability. She noted that wealthier, high-emitting nations may resist due to concerns over historical responsibility and potential financial liability.
While General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, the ICJ emphasized that addressing climate change constitutes an international obligation under existing law.
A Broader Policy Shift
The Trump administration’s opposition to the resolution aligns with its broader policy direction. By rolling back domestic emissions regulations and moving away from multilateral climate agreements, the White House has signaled that it rejects what it views as costly international climate mandates.
The debate also underscores a widening divide between nations most vulnerable to climate impacts — including small island states — and major industrial powers wary of financial and legal exposure.
Mainstream climate scientists continue to warn that rising global temperatures are contributing to increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events, including flooding, droughts, wildfires and dangerous heat waves.
As informal consultations on the resolution begin at the United Nations, the outcome may hinge on whether enough countries align with Vanuatu’s push for stronger accountability — or heed Washington’s call to scale back the proposal.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.