Barely hours into his second term, US President Donald Trump repeated one of his most consequential first-term acts: withdrawing his country from the Paris Climate Accords. The decision not only places America alongside a handful of nations outside the climate pact: Iran, Yemen and Libya; but it also casts doubt on the strength of global co-operation against climate change at a time when emissions continue to rise and the window for action is narrowing.
This reversal followed his predecessor Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in clean energy and climate subsidies in US history, which itself came after Mr Trump’s first withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, originally signed under former president Barack Obama. Policy whiplash is hardly new in Washington, but climate change is not a football to be hurled back and forth. It is a relentless and deeply consequential force, moving faster than America’s politics. Its worst effects remain within reach to mitigate, but only through immediate and sustained action.
The challenge is compounded by partisan divides. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 28 per cent of Republicans say they worry about global warming, compared to 90 per cent of Democrats. That gap leaves Democratic governors, legislators and mayors under mounting pressure to act, particularly with midterms looming in 2026.
Understand the urgency – both for the sake of the planet and her constituents, New York Governor Kathy Hochul wrote to UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell, pledging that the bipartisan US Climate Alliance would uphold Paris commitments despite Mr Trump’s order. Formed in 2017 by the governors of Washington, New York and California, the alliance now spans 24 states and territories, representing 55 per cent of the US population and 60 per cent of its economy. Members have committed to cutting emissions, accelerating state-level policies, tying climate action to equity and jobs, and reporting progress in global forums.
Attempting to fill the federal government’s gaps, states have begun enacting ambitious climate laws of their own. New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act mandates 70 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Rhode Island followed in 2023 with an executive order requiring 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030; the first state in the nation to do so.
California, the nation’s climate trailblazer, has pioneered clean energy, set ambitious emissions targets and positioned itself as a climate leader in moments when federal policy has faltered. For most Californians, climate change is not abstract; 80 per cent see it as a serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life. Nearly two thirds support California making its own climate policies independent of the federal government.
Reflecting that sentiment, Governor Gavin Newsom, already floated as a possible Democratic presidential contender, recently signed a comprehensive agreement with Denmark to strengthen economic and trade ties covering climate, technology and AI. The agreement also underscored a commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045, supported by clean energy initiatives and climate-smart agriculture. Announcing the deal, Mr Newsom said: “Our message to the rest of the world is clear: California is a stable, reliable partner, no matter who’s in the White House.”
This was not Mr Newsom’s first venture into international climate partnerships. Last year, he signed a similar partnership with Sweden, prioritising innovation in electric vehicles, solar and offshore wind. California was also among the first US states to pursue climate co-operation with China, establishing a partnership more than 10 years ago that continues yielded tangible results today, with Beijing adopting elements of California’s clean car standards, an influence that helped propel China to the forefront of electric vehicle development. Such bilateral efforts reinforce California’s credibility as a stable international partner, projecting continuity even as Washington vacillates.
These actions underscore a striking reality: as Washington retreats, states are carrying the mantle of US climate leadership. Through the Climate Alliance and international agreements, governors are making it clear to the world that America’s climate commitments do not begin and end with the federal government.
Underscoring that point, state delegations from Washington state, New York and California travelled to Brussels earlier this year to meet with EU climate officials to discuss carbon pricing, emissions trading and renewable energy frameworks. Such exchanges deepen collaboration but risk fragmenting America’s global posture, leaving Washington sidelined while states chart their own course.
This raises an uncomfortable question: what happens to US credibility when the world looks to Sacramento or Albany, not Washington, for climate leadership? Subnational diplomacy may sustain international co-operation in the short term, but it leaves the US speaking with a fragmented voice in multilateral forums such as Cop and the G20, at least until 2028, when a potential Democratic administration might re-engage federally.
The stakes are high. Political disinterest and partisanship are not solving the crisis, they are merely delaying action while the inevitable impacts of global warming intensify. Even Mr Trump’s push for ambitious AI goals has an environmental cost, given the enormous energy demands of machine learning if it isn't developed with sustainability in mind. States, by contrast, are embedding climate action in ways that deliver tangible benefits: lower emissions, green jobs and healthier communities.
Nonetheless, state ambition has limits. What we see now is triage; governors holding the line until Washington acts with the urgency needed to keep warming below 1.5°C. State efforts matter – and should be applauded, but only federal leadership has the power to turn stopgap measures into real global progress.
