During the week of September 22nd, the US hosted several UN committees and conferences, including the General Assembly meeting and a preparatory climate summit for the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP 30) in November. The summit was intended for countries to submit their amended Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their climate goals. As stipulated by the Paris Agreement, member states must submit NDCs every five years pledging greenhouse gas reduction targets for the next decade. 

While more than 100 countries were scheduled to present their NDCs at the summit, the US was noticeably absent from the list as President Trump issued an executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement in January 2025, ending US adherence to UN climate requirements. The president made his stance on global climate policy clear through his remarks to the UN General Assembly. He claimed during his speech that climate change was “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” Given the context of the summit, President Trump’s remark was poorly received, demonstrating how the US is increasingly alienating itself internationally through inflammatory comments. 

Aside from the US, most UN member states generally agreed on the importance of an urgent global response to climate change. For instance, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell emphasized this notion during the summit. He stated the “need to reaffirm, sending a stronger, unmistakable signal” as “the world is still rock-solid behind Paris, and fully on board for climate cooperation.” For the most part, countries are pledging to act accordingly in relation to their 2035 emissions reduction targets. President Xi Jinping announced that China would reduce economy-wide net emissions 7-10% from peak levels and increase the share of non-fossil fuels in total energy consumption to over 30%. Additionally, the country plans to expand its wind and solar capacity sixfold compared to 2020 levels. 

The EU has not yet finalized its NDC goals, but member states have agreed that their targets will fall within the range of cutting 66-72% of total emissions. Brazil, the host country for COP 30, has set aggressive targets as well. The country pledged to reduce emissions by 59-67%. Australia, which is set to host COP 31 next year, is aiming to reduce emissions by 62-70%, as compared to 2005 levels. 

But large, economically powerful nations are not the only states pledging to do their part. Small developing nations are taking climate change seriously, as they are already beginning to experience severe negative impacts of the issue. For example, the island country of Belize plans to produce 80% of its electricity using renewable sources while pledging to plant one million trees within the next three years. Countries large and small are making concrete pledges to combat climate change, though whether these goals will be met by 2035 remains to be seen.

Given these contribution pledges, it is unsurprising that President Trump’s attitude towards climate change ruffled the feathers of many global leaders. International perceptions of US climate policy are currently unfavorable. The EU’s climate commissioner described the US’s behavior in an interview as “essentially checking out” regarding the issue, signaling the view that the country is avoiding responsibility. Small developing nations were more blunt about their disapproval. The island nation of Palau, which is currently battling sea level rise attributed to climate change, now expects this behavior from the US. America’s emissions have greatly contributed to sea level rise, threatening island nations, which are disappointed in the lack of accountability. Palau’s ambassador labeled American apathy as a “betrayal of the most vulnerable” since the country is gradually losing territory to the sea. Malawi’s ambassador had similar critiques, saying that the US is “endangering the lives of innocent people.” Malawi, located in southeast Africa, is one of the poorest countries in the world and lacks the resources to protect its people from climate impacts. 

Brazil and China also alluded to their disdain for the US’s actions in interviews following Trump’s speech. Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva observed that “no one is safe from the effects of climate change… Nature does not bow down to bombs or warships. No country stands above another.” While not explicitly referencing the US, the comment was likely a jab at America’s prioritization of military over climate spending. Xi Jinping was more neutral, stating, “While some countries are acting against it, the international community should stay focused on the right direction.” His statement suggests the opinion that the US is thwarting global interests by distancing itself from the Paris Agreement. 

Overall, many world leaders indicated a negative view of the US based on the country’s recent unwillingness to cooperate with the UN on climate change issues. This perception has several problematic implications for America from an international relations perspective. Firstly, as each of the five states mentioned suggested, the US appears to be shirking its responsibility to the international community. As the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and current second-largest emitter, the US is a key contributor to global emissions. Other countries feel that they are cleaning up a mess that the US largely created and resent that the US is contributing to the problem but not to the solution. As climate mitigation and adaptation efforts continue to ramp up, this could strain relations between the US and the rest of the world. 

Moreover, it is obvious that the UN was unconvinced by President Trump’s arguments denying climate change. The UN agenda remained unchanged, and member states are continuing with their climate plans with or without US support. Irrespective of the validity of Trump’s claims, the situation shows that the US is isolating itself from the international community in a major area of collaboration. 

Importantly, such US isolation leaves room for other geopolitical actors to step to the forefront. The obvious candidate is China, which has become the largest manufacturer of most renewable energy technologies and therefore has a distinct interest in promoting a global shift away from fossil fuels. If the US does not pursue a climate policy in line with the UN, China is likely to fill the resulting power vacuum. Ian Bremmer, a political scientist with the Belfer Center, argued that US inaction would equate to allowing China to do so. Former vice president Al Gore expressed a similar viewpoint, saying, “It’s a great tragedy that the United States of America is hobbling itself and allowing China to become the global leader in confronting the climate crisis.” The Chinese economy could seize this opportunity to further benefit from renewables manufacturing by backing clean energy policies, giving China greater control over global markets. Additionally, Chinese cooperation with UN goals will enhance its global credibility and soft power, fostering trust while potentially leaving an isolated US behind.  

In conclusion, America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and President Trump’s statements to the General Assembly have resulted in sharp criticism from an international community that is increasingly committed to climate action. Regardless of one’s opinion regarding the Trump administration’s overall approach to energy and climate policy, the reactions of leaders and diplomats at the climate summit should be concerning. The recent backlash reveals a global sentiment that the US is abandoning its responsibility to the world at a time when other states are making sacrifices on behalf of the common good. Attitudes and agendas at the summit show that the UN and many member states will continue their course of climate change mitigation despite the lack of US involvement, leading to American isolationism. This, in turn, gives China an opportunity to step forward at the US’ expense. Therefore, if the US remains resolute in its withdrawal from UN climate efforts, it may tarnish its global reputation and diminish its hegemony.