Trump’s new world order: Goodbye to international agreements, hello to isolationism

Donald Trump has already begun shaping his new world order. The executive orders he signed just hours after his inauguration as U.S. president, along with his statements, made his intentions clear. Goodbye to multilateralism: Washington will pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the pact negotiated within the OECD to tax large multinational corporations. A more isolationist America is coming, determined to expand its influence. However, while the new president has framed these actions as beneficial for the U.S., the move could backfire: by withdrawing from international institutions, he is leaving space for rivals to step in and fill the void.

In the case of climate agreements, the United States is also opening the door to harming its clean energy sector, which generates nearly $2 billion annually, creating an opportunity for other countries to become more competitive.

It is not as if the United States has so far maintained an impeccable record of support for multilateral institutions. It withdrew from UNESCO in 2017, the U.N. body that promotes education and culture, and is not a member of the International Criminal Court. What is new under Trump is the breadth and the arguments of his withdrawals, which are added to the threats to other institutions: NATO, its mission and the defense spending of different countries are in the new president’s crosshairs. The Republican administration also announces possible re-evaluations of its contributions to U.N. agencies.

Trump argues in all cases that Washington is being treated unfairly, and in some instances, he also points to China — its supposed influence or domestic policies — to support the decision to withdraw. These moves were widely anticipated. The Republican had repeatedly announced them at his campaign rallies, much to the delight of his supporters. He had already taken steps to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the WHO during his first term. At the time, they seemed like temporary interruptions, easily reversed by Joe Biden during his presidency. Now, however, the consequences are far more complicated.

Trump’s executive order, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements,” not only mandates the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement but also terminates the U.S. International Climate Financing Plan, which had been worth nearly $10 billion a year. Trump has promised to increase domestic oil and gas production while eliminating subsidies for wind turbines and electric vehicles — subsidies that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had introduced as part of a broader effort to stimulate the clean energy sector and combat climate change.

“The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” Trump stated as he signed the decree in a packed hall of supporters during a televised ceremony. China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but it is also a major investor in renewable energy and a leading exporter of clean energy. It is the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles and, according to experts, is a decade ahead of the United States in the green energy sector.

On the Paris accords, Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Center at the Asia Partnership Policy Institute (ASPI) in Washington, remarked: “The decision underscores the volatility of U.S. domestic climate change policy, a factor that will inevitably undermine the already struggling global climate momentum. As Europe and China grapple with their own domestic climate efforts, Trump’s move now presents a tougher challenge than it did eight years ago. Politics will play an increasingly limited role in addressing climate change,” he said in an email.

Although Trump may not see it this way, the cost of clean technologies — such as wind, solar, and electric vehicles — has been falling dramatically. The U.S. is already the world’s leading producer of oil and gas. “By denying the increasingly obvious fact that economic competitiveness and climate action can go hand in hand, the U.S. risks falling further behind in the race for green technologies,” argues Li Shuo.

U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell also emphasized the economic benefits of combating climate change and the clean energy boom: “Embracing it will mean massive profits, millions of manufacturing jobs and clean air,” he said in a statement. “Ignoring it only sends all that vast wealth to competitor economies, while climate disasters like droughts, wildfires and superstorms keep getting worse, destroying property and businesses, hitting nationwide food production, and driving economy-wide price inflation.”

With its three withdrawals from global commitments, the United States also loses a key tool of influence and leverage over other economies, and renounces participation in decisions of global significance that these organizations can make. When announcing the departure from the WHO — a 12-month process now underway to complete it — Trump justified the move by citing the “inappropriate political influence of WHO member states,” a complaint seemingly aimed at China. In 2020, during his first attempt to leave the WHO, he accused the institution of aiding Beijing in concealing the origins of the COVID pandemic. He also lamented the “unfairly onerous payments” the U.S., as the largest contributing country, has to make compared to other major economies like China.

Washington contributes 18% of the WHO’s budget, out of a total of nearly $6.8 billion, and its withdrawal from the organization puts a wide range of global health programs at risk.“We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the U.S. and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe,” the Geneva-based institution responded to Trump’s announcement.

Meanwhile, China has been quick to voice its support for the body. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun emphasized that the WHO plays a crucial role in global health governance and that its role should be strengthened, not weakened.

Trump’s vision extends to other members of his team. His nominee for U.N. ambassador, Elise Stefanik, echoed the need to strengthen alliances with other partners to counter Beijing’s influence at the United Nations during her confirmation hearing on Tuesday. However, she also promised a review of the funds Washington provides to the multilateral institution.

This skeptical view of multilateralism in the Republican administration comes in addition to Trump’s declared interest in expanding U.S. territory. In his inaugural address on Monday, he reiterated this ambition, which includes regaining control of the Panama Canal and the annexation of Greenland (though he did not mention this specifically in his remarks). These ideas have raised concerns among allied nations.

Trump’s disdain for the multilateral order is compounded by his transactional approach to international relations. In signing the executive orders on Monday, he declared about Latin America: “They need us much more than we need them. We don’t need them.” He repeated: “They need us. Everybody needs us.”

If Trump continues to create power vacuums in multilateral institutions and dismiss other nations, he may well find that he accelerates the very thing he seeks to avoid: the rise of rival countries’ influence on the global stage and a deepening of ties between other nations and Beijing. The gap he leaves open in the green industries sector may only be the first example of this dynamic.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition