President Donald Trump's recent move to pull the United States out of the world's primary climate change treaty may have been an illegal act, according to prominent legal scholars. The decision, outlined in a presidential memorandum this week, marks the first time any nation has attempted to exit the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
A Constitutional Clash Over Treaty Withdrawal
In the memorandum, President Trump stated the US "shall withdraw" from the UNFCCC, alongside 65 other international bodies deemed contrary to American interests. However, this unilateral action has ignited a fierce debate over presidential authority.
Harold Hongju Koh, former chief legal adviser for the US State Department, told The Guardian he believes the President lacks the power for such a move. "In my legal opinion, he does not have the authority," Koh stated, advocating for a "mirror principle" where the congressional approval needed to join a treaty is also required to leave it.
The legal ambiguity stems from the US Constitution and historical precedent. The UNFCCC was ratified by the Senate unanimously in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, unlike the Paris Agreement, which President Obama treated as an executive accord. Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert at Columbia University, noted this creates an "open question" regarding unilateral withdrawal.
Global Repercussions and Domestic Outcry
The announcement has drawn sharp condemnation from political figures and climate advocates. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a prominent climate hawk, labelled the withdrawal "not just corrupt, it's illegal," accusing the Trump administration of being driven by "creepy polluters' control."
Internationally, the move signals that the US is "an unreliable partner for long term commitments," according to Jean Galbraith, an international law expert at the University of Pennsylvania. It deals a significant blow to global climate diplomacy at a time when scientific warnings are increasingly dire.
The withdrawal process itself remains unclear. The UNFCCC requires one year's written notice for a party to exit. While Trump's memo orders steps to withdraw "as soon as possible," it did not specify if a formal notice of termination would be submitted to the UN.
The Path Forward and Lasting Damage
Experts are divided on the long-term consequences and the process for a future US re-entry. Some, like Curtis Bradley of the University of Chicago, believe a future president would need to secure a fresh two-thirds Senate vote to rejoin, a daunting task in today's polarised political climate.
Others, including former US climate envoy Sue Biniaz, argue the 1992 Senate ratification remains valid, allowing for a more seamless return. "Climate action won’t stop because of the latest US treaty withdrawal," Biniaz said, expressing hope the federal retreat is temporary.
The action coincides with the anniversary of devastating Los Angeles wildfires and follows geopolitical manoeuvring in Venezuela, underscoring the administration's focus on fossil fuel interests. Advocacy groups warn of profound, lasting harm. Melinda St Louis of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch said Trump's contempt for international efforts "continues to shred the nation’s international credibility and will cause irreparable damage to current and future generations."
With legal challenges expected and the world watching, this unprecedented exit from the cornerstone of global climate governance leaves a legacy of legal uncertainty and damaged trust on the world stage.
