Why Trump’s Exit From Paris Agreement May Not Be Official Until 2026

On January 20, President Donald Trump signed approximately 200 executive orders and memos undoing Biden era policies, including an order to immediately remove the United States from the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, due to language in the agreement, the exit may not be effective until 2026.

The Paris Agreement is an international treaty adopted in 2015 to address the impacts of climate change. The agreement sets a goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. To reach that goal, a series of policies were adopted to address how governments and businesses reduce and report GHG emissions. It also focused on funding of both climate change initiatives and the economic impacts of climate change.

The U.S originally signed the treaty in 2015. In 2019, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the treaty, only for President Joe Biden to rejoin in 2021. On January 20, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement for a second time.

When Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2019, the withdrawal was not effective until 2020 due to language in the the treaty requiring one year notice. At the time, the Trump Administration acknowledged the delay and continued to participate in the process, sending a delegation to negotiate the exit. However, the language of the 2025 executive order calls for an immediate exit.

In the order, Trump stated, “The United States will consider its withdrawal from the agreement and any attendant obligations to be effective immediately upon this provision of notification.” The order also calls for the immediate termination of financial obligations under the treaty.

It is unclear if Trump truly intends for the withdrawal from the agreement to be effective January 20, or if that statement is inclusive of the one year notification. However, it raises some interesting legal questions.

Interpreting The Paris Agreement

Both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement use mirroring language relating to leaving the agreements. Leaving one results in leaving the other. In the Paris Agreement, Article 28 addresses leaving the agreement.

“1. Any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

“2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal…”

Under a strict reading of the text, withdrawal is effective one year after notice is sent to the U.N. Secretary-General. When the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in 2019, it acknowledged this delay and accepted a 2020 effective date.

However, the executive ordered signed on January 20 stated the withdrawal was “effective immediately upon this provision of notification.” Further, it states the U.S. “shall immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment.” This indicates that Trump is considering the exit effective January 20.

This may not be an unreasonable expectation. There is a legal argument to be made that the November 2019 withdrawal provided the one year notification required under Article 28. The agreement is not written to consider parties exiting then reentering and leaves room for interpretation. If Trump wants to make this argument, it will be up to the State Department to present it to the U.N.

Interestingly, the standard language of the executive order states, the “order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” That leaves room for attorneys in the State Department to interpret the executive order to be inclusive of the one year delay.

The precise start date of the one year notification timeline is yet to be determined. Under the Agreement, the period begins when the U.N. Secretary-General receives the notice. While Trump signed the executive order on January 20 directing the U.N. Ambassador to send the notice, it is unlikely that notice was sent the same day. Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick for U.N. Ambassador, was still in confirmation hearings on January 21.

Handling Disputes Under The Paris Agreement

The timing of the exit from the Paris Agreement is more than a formality. Trump’s executive order states that the U.N. Ambassador, Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury “shall immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment made by the United States under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” If Trump cuts off funding that is obligated through the UNCCC or the Paris Agreement, other countries may want to dispute the failure to pay.

Disputes under the Paris Agreement are handled under Article 14 of the UNCCC. Paragraph 1 states, “in the event of a dispute between any two or more Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Parties concerned shall seek a settlement of the dispute through negotiation or any other peaceful means of their own choice.”

However, Paragraph 2 allows parties to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the U.N. Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time.

Notably, the ICJ is currently reviewing legal obligations created under the Paris Agreement. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. The opinion, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development.

During the oral hearings in December, attorneys representing Biden’s State Department argued that the Paris Agreement does not create legal obligations. They also argued that there is not an established “right to a healthy environment” under international law.

If Trump decides to forgo the one year notification period and exit the Paris Agreement immediately, international diplomats and attorneys will debate it endlessly.