Listen to the article
The Trump administration is pressuring nations to oppose a United Nations draft resolution on climate change proposed by Vanuatu, according to diplomatic cables obtained by The Associated Press. The administration has instructed all U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to express “strong objections” to the proposal, claiming it “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
The State Department’s guidance, issued Tuesday, emphasizes President Trump’s position that the UN and global community have “gone wildly off track, exaggerating climate change into the world’s greatest threat.” This directive represents the latest in a series of moves distancing the U.S. from international climate initiatives.
Just one day before the cable was sent, the administration revoked a key scientific finding that had served as the foundation for U.S. greenhouse gas regulations. This follows last month’s announcement of plans to withdraw from the UN treaty establishing international climate negotiations.
Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation facing existential threats from rising sea levels, drafted the resolution based on a groundbreaking July 2023 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court determined that countries could violate international law by failing to protect the planet from climate change, potentially making them liable for reparations to affected nations.
While the ICJ opinion is not legally binding, it was widely regarded as a pivotal moment in international climate law. All UN member states, including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China, are parties to the court.
The draft resolution aims to translate the ICJ’s findings into “concrete multinational action,” calling on all nations to comply with climate-related obligations under international law. Specific requirements include adopting national climate action plans to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and providing “full and prompt reparation for damage” caused by violations. The proposal would also establish an International Register of Damage to document evidence and claims.
Vanuatu’s UN Ambassador Odo Tevi has indicated his country seeks a vote on the resolution by late March. He emphasized that the measure would strengthen global climate action and multilateral cooperation by reinforcing the clarity provided in the ICJ ruling.
Human rights advocates have voiced support for the resolution. Louis Charbonneau, UN director of Human Rights Watch, urged governments to “live up to their obligation” to protect human rights by safeguarding the environment. “Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus and continue to support reliance on harmful fossil fuels,” he stated on Friday.
Though General Assembly resolutions lack legal enforcement mechanisms, the ICJ has established that addressing the climate crisis constitutes an international obligation. Candy Ofime, climate justice researcher at Amnesty International, noted that the resolution “attempts to turn the ICJ’s interpretation of key legal standards into a practical roadmap for state accountability,” likely triggering resistance from “higher income high emitting countries wary of their historical responsibility and financial liability.”
The State Department cable instructs diplomats to pressure countries to urge Vanuatu to withdraw its draft by Friday, when informal consultations began. U.S. officials claim other G7 nations, along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, share concerns about aspects of the proposal.
The guidance characterizes the resolution as “another example of UN overreach” and part of a pattern of using “speculative climate models to fabricate purported legal obligations that seek to assign blame and encourage baseless claims.”
This diplomatic pressure campaign comes despite widespread scientific consensus that climate change is driving increasingly severe weather events worldwide, including deadly floods, droughts, wildfires, extreme rainfall, and dangerous heat waves—all of which cause substantial economic damage and human suffering.
The confrontation underscores growing tensions between nations most vulnerable to climate impacts and major carbon-emitting powers reluctant to accept financial responsibility for climate damages, potentially setting the stage for a significant diplomatic showdown at the United Nations in the coming weeks.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
Withdrawing from international climate initiatives and downplaying the scientific evidence seems like a shortsighted political decision rather than one based on facts and the best interests of the planet. This could undermine global progress on this critical issue.
I’m curious to see how other nations respond to the U.S. pressure. Will they stand firm on the need for climate action, or will they cave to American demands?
This directive seems like another example of the administration’s disregard for scientific consensus and the global public good. Undermining international climate efforts is a shortsighted and irresponsible move.
I agree. The U.S. should be leading the charge on climate solutions, not obstructing progress. This decision is deeply concerning.
I’m skeptical of the administration’s claim that the UN climate proposal ‘could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.’ Addressing climate change presents significant economic opportunities in the clean energy transition.
That’s a fair point. Embracing renewable energy, carbon capture, and other sustainable technologies could drive innovation and job creation in the U.S. if done right.
This is a concerning move by the Trump administration. Dismissing the threat of climate change and opposing UN efforts to address it could have serious consequences for the planet and vulnerable nations like Vanuatu.
I agree, climate change is a global issue that requires multilateral cooperation, not unilateral opposition.
As someone with an interest in mining and energy, I’m concerned about the potential impact of this move on the development of sustainable technologies and industries. Ignoring climate change could hamper innovation and investment in the clean energy transition.
That’s a good point. The mining and energy sectors have a key role to play in addressing climate change, so this stance seems counterproductive for the long-term interests of those industries.
The U.S. seems increasingly isolated on the global stage when it comes to climate action. I hope this doesn’t undermine international cooperation and the ability to tackle this urgent challenge effectively.
Agreed. The world can’t afford for major powers like the U.S. to obstruct progress on climate change. Multilateral solutions are essential.