What Impact on the Paris Climate Deal and WHO as Trump Pulls the United States Out?
In a world grappling with extreme weather events and emerging health crises, multilateral agreements and organisations have taken centre stage in efforts to safeguard the planet and human well-being. Yet, in a move that stirred global debate, the United States President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from two critical international frameworks: the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization (WHO).
In a world grappling with extreme weather events and emerging health crises, multilateral agreements and organisations have taken centre stage in efforts to safeguard the planet and human well-being. Yet, in a move that stirred global debate, the United States President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from two critical international frameworks: the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization (WHO). These decisions, taken at different points during his time in office, remain emblematic of the challenges facing global cooperation. This article examines the implications of these withdrawals, explores the reactions from various stakeholders, and considers how the future might unfold in the quest for a healthier planet and populace.
Context and Historical Background
Negotiated in late 2015 and adopted by 196 Parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris, the Paris Agreement seeks to limit global temperature rises to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, ideally pursuing a 1.5°C threshold. It replaced the Kyoto Protocol, which had placed legally binding emission reduction targets on developed nations. Under the Paris Framework, each signatory country formulates its own nationally determined contributions (NDCs), reflecting its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time.
The United States initially pledged to reduce its emissions by 26–28% below its 2005 levels by 2025. In 2017, President Trump first announced plans to withdraw the country from the Agreement, arguing that compliance placed an unfair economic burden on American businesses. Although the formal process to exit the Paris Agreement could only begin in November 2019, his administration’s policies from 2017 to 2021 signalled a broader reluctance to embrace emissions curbs. Ultimately, the United States formally withdrew in November 2020, only to rejoin under former President Joe Biden in February 2021.
The World Health Organization (WHO)
Founded in 1948 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WHO is a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health. It coordinates efforts against infectious diseases, sets health standards, and provides guidance on significant health challenges, including pandemics and chronic illnesses. Historically, the United States has been one of the WHO’s largest donors, contributing around 15% of its total budget in some years, according to WHO financial reports.
President Trump’s criticism of the WHO intensified in 2020, largely centring on allegations that the organisation was overly influenced by China and had mishandled the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2020, he initiated formal proceedings for the United States to leave the WHO. However, this was not completed before his term ended; the Biden administration rescinded the withdrawal upon taking office in January 2021.
Trump’s Withdrawals: Motivations and Mechanics
Climate Skepticism and “America First”
A central theme in Trump’s policies was the “America First” approach, asserting that international agreements often placed the United States at a disadvantage. In the context of climate change, Trump repeatedly questioned scientific findings from institutions such as NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite the IPCC’s Special Report (2018) warning that global emissions must be cut nearly in half by 2030 to keep warming below 1.5°C, Trump argued that joining ambitious climate initiatives came at the cost of American jobs and economic growth.
Concerning the WHO, Trump criticised the agency for allegedly failing to hold China accountable during the onset of COVID-19. He contended that the United States contributed disproportionate funding relative to other countries, including China. These sentiments were highlighted in an executive order where he announced an intention to withdraw, framing it partly as a cost-saving measure for American taxpayers.
Legal Procedures and Their Complexities
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) guidelines, a country can withdraw from the Paris Agreement only after having been a party for three years, followed by a one-year notice period. Hence, Trump’s formal withdrawal process could not begin until late 2019, taking effect in November 2020. For the WHO, withdrawal procedures are governed by the WHO Constitution and typically require a one-year notice period, alongside settling any outstanding financial obligations. While Trump started the withdrawal process, the change in administration brought the country’s membership back on track.
Impact on the Paris Climate Agreement
One of the primary concerns raised by experts was that the United States’ exit from the Paris Agreement would create a leadership vacuum. Historically, the United States has been both the largest historical emitter of GHGs (responsible for around 25% of global emissions since the 18th century) and a technological innovator. Its participation signals commitment and encourages other nations to act. In leaving, critics said, the United States weakened the Agreement’s collective momentum and potentially emboldened other countries to dilute their own commitments.
China and the European Union (EU) have since taken more prominent roles, with the EU launching the European Green Deal in 2020 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. China has announced its intention to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Yet, as noted by the World Resources Institute, without robust contributions from the United States, meeting global emissions targets remains significantly more difficult.
Economic and Environmental Consequences
From an economic standpoint, some experts argued that withdrawing from the Paris Agreement could hamper the United States’ potential growth in the burgeoning renewable energy sector. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), renewable energy investments could create more jobs than the fossil fuel industry over the long term, presenting a dynamic market in which the United States was poised to be competitive.
Environmentally, the shortfall from the US’s pledged emissions reductions might stall progress toward global climate goals. In a 2019 IPCC report, scientists warned that global warming could surpass 3°C by the end of the century if existing efforts are not intensified. The presence and leadership of major emitters—particularly the United States—are essential to closing the emissions gap and preventing catastrophic outcomes such as rising sea levels, frequent heatwaves, extreme rainfall, and the erosion of agricultural productivity.
Domestic Pushback and Local Actions
Within the United States, many state governments, cities, and businesses resisted Trump’s move and pledged to uphold the guidelines of the Paris Agreement. Coalitions such as the United States Climate Alliance, comprising governors from dozens of states, publicly committed to meeting or exceeding the original national targets. Major companies, including Apple, Google, and Walmart, also reaffirmed their support for clean energy transitions. This decentralised approach softened the immediate blow of federal disengagement, demonstrating that subnational actions could still drive environmental progress.
Impact on the World Health Organization
The United States has long been a key donor to the WHO, historically providing hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This funding is crucial for programmes tackling polio, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and other global health challenges. Should the United States fully withdraw and cut its financial contributions, there is a risk of undermining the WHO’s capacity to assist lower-income countries, potentially leaving them more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks.
Beyond finances, American health experts have played leading roles in WHO initiatives, from maternal health to pandemic preparedness. The WHO relies on a network of scientists, epidemiologists, and public health officials from around the world. A complete withdrawal of US support could restrict the flow of critical data, research, and personnel, weakening the global body’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.
The COVID-19 crisis showed that diseases transcend borders, underscoring the necessity for coordinated global strategies. Collaborative efforts, including data sharing and joint vaccine development (e.g., within COVAX), were vital in reducing the pandemic’s toll. Experts at Johns Hopkins University and other public health institutions emphasise that, without open channels of international cooperation, countries may struggle to contain outbreaks that quickly spread to become pandemics.
Furthermore, the WHO has been brokering negotiations for a new global pandemic treaty designed to enhance preparedness and resilience. If the United States retreats from active participation, its absence during these critical talks would likely slow progress, potentially compromising future global health security.
Reputational Risks and Multilateral Frictions
Diplomatically, the decision to pull out of an established international health institution can strain relations between the United States and its allies. Many European governments, which rely on the WHO’s guidance for coordinated health responses, expressed disappointment at the move. Some interpreted it as indicative of a broader trend towards unilateralism, making it more challenging to align on other urgent global agendas, such as climate change and economic recovery.
Reactions and Countermoves
Leaders across Europe, Asia, and Africa voiced concern. French President Emmanuel Macron, an early and vocal critic of Trump’s climate stance, reaffirmed France’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, urging other nations to do the same. German Chancellor Angela Merkel emphasised that global challenges require global solutions, echoing the sentiments of many scientists and diplomats.
On the health front, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, expressed regret over the United States’ decision, highlighting the agency’s critical role in fighting pandemics. Countries in Africa and South Asia particularly feared that reduced funding would hamper immunisation drives and chronic disease management, reversing years of progress.
Domestic Response in the United States
Politically, opinion in the United States was sharply divided. Some Republicans supported Trump’s stance, framing the WHO withdrawal as holding the organisation accountable for alleged inefficiencies. On climate, a faction aligned with Trump’s view that regulations and global pacts stifled US economic growth. In contrast, Democrats, environmental advocates, and a large portion of the scientific community opposed these moves. Influential politicians, including former Vice-President Al Gore, insisted that disengaging from global forums undermined American leadership and security.
Looking Ahead
Trump’s withdrawal did come to pass in procedural terms for the Paris Agreement. However, the next administration under Joe Biden swiftly reversed the decision in early 2021, signalling a renewed US commitment to climate action. A similar situation unfolded with the WHO, where withdrawal did not fully materialise. This underscores how dependent international agreements can be on the priorities of individual governments.
Nevertheless, these pivots highlight an enduring reality: when the United States steps away from global partnerships, it creates both uncertainty and opportunities. Other powers, including China and the European Union, may step forward to fill leadership gaps, altering global power dynamics and strategies.
The Role of Subnational and Non-Governmental Actors
In the face of federal reversals, subnational governments, businesses, and civil society groups can sustain momentum. States such as California, New York, and Washington implemented stricter emission targets, while multinational corporations invested heavily in renewable energy. Philanthropic organisations continued funding public health initiatives abroad, even when federal support waned. These decentralized efforts highlight the possibility that long-term solutions may emerge from diverse actors working in tandem, irrespective of federal policies.
The Imperative of Global Cooperation
On both climate change and public health, experts agree that international collaboration is not merely beneficial—it is essential. Rising sea levels threaten coastal cities worldwide, from Miami in the United States to Mumbai in India. Infectious diseases can spread from rural villages to global metropolises within days, as tragically witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sheer scale of these challenges transcends national borders, making robust global governance structures and cooperation indispensable.
Conclusion: A Call to Recommit to Collective Action
The decisions by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and to initiate withdrawal from the World Health Organization were watershed moments that tested the resilience of international cooperation. While domestic politics and questions about burden-sharing undoubtedly played significant roles, the wider consequences of US withdrawal reverberated around the globe. Scientists, diplomats, and concerned citizens alike have pointed out that climate change and global health crises respect no borders, affecting the most vulnerable populations first and hardest.
Yet, hope endures in the determined responses of countries that have stayed the course in the Paris Agreement and in the voices of public health officials who continue to champion collaboration through the WHO. Within the United States, states, cities, corporations, and individual citizens have taken up the banner of environmental responsibility and health advocacy, demonstrating that forward momentum can persist even when federal policies shift. Their efforts reflect an inherent belief: that collective progress on life-and-death issues, such as pandemics and ecological preservation, is both possible and imperative.
Ultimately, these episodes serve as a clarion call for recommitment, not retreat. The global challenges we face—from soaring temperatures to devastating outbreaks—demand unwavering resolve. Individuals, communities, and nations must find renewed inspiration to collaborate, innovate, and push for systemic change. Whether it is by reducing emissions, investing in sustainable technologies, or strengthening public health infrastructures, every action has a tangible impact on our shared future.
At the heart of this struggle are real people: families in low-lying islands threatened by rising seas, communities in Africa relying on the WHO’s programmes to combat preventable diseases, and workers worldwide seeking stable employment in a green economy. By reaffirming participation in frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the WHO, the global community sends a message of compassion, solidarity, and determination. In unity lies our capacity to protect both the planet we call home and the health of those who inhabit it. The decisions made today will shape the legacy we leave for future generations—one where shared responsibility, science, and empathy guide us towards a more sustainable, healthier tomorrow.
Aric Jabari is the Editorial Director of the Sixteenth Council.
