USA EXITS IPCC, AS FUNDING CUTS TO UNFCCCARE CONFIRMED
On January 7, 2026, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum following through on Executive Order 14199 of February 4, 2025. In that order, President Trump directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Permanent Representative to the UN, Mike Waltz, to identify international organizations and UN agencies whose membership offered no perceived “national interest” advantage. The resulting report includes an annex listing over 60 entities from which the US will either withdraw or revoke support.
The list is split into two categories: non-UN organizations slated for full withdrawal and UN agencies facing a suspension of participation or funding. This distinction is critical: the memorandum itself is a political and historical statement rather than a legal instrument, and it does not grant the authority to unilaterally exit international treaties ratified by Congress.
The impact on climate science and the IPCC
The first list – covering organizations targeted for immediate withdrawal under direct presidential authority – includes the IPCC, IRENA, IPBES, the International Energy Forum, and the International Solar Alliance, among others.
The US exit from the IPCC deals a double blow to the world’s leading climate science body:
- Financial: The IPCC trust fund will lose approximately $1.67 million annually. While the US is a major historical contributor, the IPCC has managed similar (though less absolute) cuts during the first Trump administration. This loss, while significant, is considered manageable.
- Operational: The more insidious impact concerns US scientists. While they are not formally barred from contributing to the Panel in a personal capacity, those employed by public universities or requiring federal travel authorizations and visas may face significant administrative hurdles. Effectively, while the IPCC does not lose American expertise on paper, the practical barriers to participation could severely diminish the US scientific contribution.
The UNFCCC: A legal “limbo”
Regarding the UNFCCC (the 1992 framework convention behind the Paris Agreement), a technical clarification is necessary to counter recent misinformation. The United States is not exiting the Convention through this memorandum. Because the UNFCCC was ratified by the US Senate under George H.W. Bush, its withdrawal cannot be triggered by an executive memo or order alone. The White House legal counsel acknowledged this constraint with specific phrasing: “For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.”
Consequently, the US remains a formal member of the UNFCCC unless Congress decides otherwise – which is currently not on the agenda. However, the administration will likely boycott meetings (such as COPs) and withhold Secretariat funding. Any “unorthodox” formal notice of withdrawal sent by the administration would likely face immediate legal challenges from the Democratic minority, leaving the US in a state of institutional limbo.
A triple crisis: Fact, politics, and finance
The fallout of this decision is three-fold:
Factual: Beyond the legal nuances, the US is effectively abandoning a vast array of multilateral initiatives it often helped launch. The absence of the world’s “biggest player” fundamentally destabilizes global climate governance.
Political: This mass exodus could trigger a “snowball effect,” encouraging aligned governments (such as Milei’s Argentina) to follow suit, further eroding the multilateral system.
Financial: Ultimately, this is a budget crisis. Many agencies will see their operating budgets slashed, leading to stalled projects, canceled summits, and a diminished capacity to provide aid where it is most needed.
By Jacopo Bencini, President of Italian Climate Network.
Cover image: The White House