Trump’s Withdrawal From UN Climate Bodies Mirrored Corporate Retreat From ESG

President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from major UN climate organizations marks a sharp policy break that mirrors a broader pullback by global corporations from ESG and net-zero alliances.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

President Donald Trump has ordered the United States to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and dozens of other international bodies focused on climate and social policy, a move that coincides with a growing exodus by major corporations from long-standing global ESG and net-zero commitments, the Epoch Times reported.

According to a White House fact sheet, Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 7 directing all federal departments and agencies to immediately cease participation in and funding of 66 international organizations — 35 outside the United Nations system and 31 UN-affiliated entities — deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.

The order formally ends U.S. involvement in the UNFCCC, a treaty framework the United States originally joined in 1992 after Senate ratification, alongside more than 190 other nations. Subsequent global climate accords, including the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — which committed countries to emissions limits and reduction targets — and the 2015 Paris Agreement — which expanded government spending and policy commitments to curb global temperatures — were never ratified by the U.S. Senate, despite broad international adoption.

The administration’s decision was followed a day later by a Treasury Department announcement that the United States would no longer provide funding to the Green Climate Fund, a major financial vehicle supporting UN climate initiatives.

Trump’s move comes as multinational corporations have increasingly stepped back from climate-linked financial alliances that once dominated global markets. Over the past decade, a web of corporate and financial coalitions emerged to align private-sector activity with UN climate objectives, including the Net Zero Banking Alliance, the Net Zero Insurance Alliance, and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. These groups operated under the umbrella of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a UN-backed coalition designed to leverage financial institutions’ influence over publicly traded companies.

At its peak, the alliance represented trillions of dollars in managed assets. Members of Net Zero Asset Managers included BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street — firms that collectively hold dominant shareholder positions across much of corporate America. A peer-reviewed study by George Mason University business professors Sebahattin Demirkan and Ted Polat found that the three firms together are the largest shareholders in more than 40 percent of publicly traded U.S. companies and 88 percent of the S&P 500.

That alignment has since fractured. Vanguard exited Net Zero Asset Managers in 2022, followed by BlackRock in January 2025. Shortly thereafter, the initiative announced it was suspending its activities. In 2023, nearly half of the Net Zero Insurance Alliance’s members withdrew amid mounting concerns over antitrust exposure.

Much of the backlash emerged from conservative-led U.S. states, where lawmakers, treasurers, and attorneys general accused banks and asset managers of coordinating against fossil fuel companies and breaching fiduciary duties to investors. Those efforts included state-level boycotts and investigations into alleged collusion.

Supporters of Trump’s withdrawal say the order aligns federal policy with shifting private-sector behavior while advancing domestic energy production. Critics of ESG frameworks argue that net-zero policies have increased energy costs without achieving meaningful climate results.

“President Trump at one stroke has removed the United States from a long list of harmful foreign entanglements, headlined by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council and a former Trump EPA transition adviser, said in an email to The Epoch Times. “Getting out of the UNFCCC is great news for Americans and can also be great news for people all over the world suffering from energy poverty policies if it hastens the collapse of the international climate racket.”

Sterling H. Burnett, director of climate and environmental policy at The Heartland Institute, described the order as “the biggest single step taken by any administration in my lifetime to advance U.S. sovereignty, national interests, and Americans’ liberty.”

“So many of the treaties and organizations benefit politically connected elites and unaccountable bureaucrats, enriching corrupt political leaders while delivering little or no benefit to average people,” Burnett wrote in an email to The Epoch Times. “The UNFCCC was misguided from the start, established on the false premise that human fossil fuel development was causing catastrophic climate change rather than being a boon to humanity.”

Climate advocacy groups sharply criticized the decision. Yamide Dagnet, senior international vice president at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement that the United States risks economic and geopolitical consequences by stepping away from global climate institutions.

“By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot,” Dagnet said, warning of lost credibility, jobs, and technological leadership.

Democratic lawmakers echoed that view. Members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition said in a statement that the withdrawal “sent a dangerous signal to the global community” and would leave the country “weaker, poorer, and more unsafe.”

Before Trump’s reelection in 2024, the United States contributed roughly 22 percent of the UNFCCC’s 75 million euro budget, which was set to rise to 81.6 million euros for 2026. Those payments were halted after Trump returned to office in 2025. In response, China increased its share of funding from 15 percent to 20 percent, while Bloomberg Philanthropies, funded by Michael Bloomberg, stepped in to cover part of the shortfall left by the U.S. withdrawal.