The U.S. officially left the 2015 Paris Agreement this year, joining Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries not party to the agreement, the international treaty aimed at keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. But the rollback goes even further: the Administration has begun withdrawing the United States from dozens of multilateral energy-related bodies, including, among others, the:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Since its adoption in 1992, this has been the principal forum for cooperation among nations on greenhouse gas-induced climate change.1

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change and providing governments with science-based information to better inform climate policies.

• International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): A global intergovernmental agency, comprising 170 countries and the EU, that drives the adoption, deployment, and use of renewable energy technologies.

• International Energy Forum (IEF): The world’s largest international organization of energy ministers representing producing and consuming countries that facilitates dialogue among member states, industry leaders, and experts.

Pulling out of these longstanding global cooperations warrants two important questions:

• What does being part of these international energy and climate bodies mean for the U.S. in the first place?

• What exactly are the potential implications of the U.S. withdrawing?

A Stable Environment for the Private Sector

Multilateral forums like UNFCCC and IPCC shape important policies of member countries, which U.S. businesses can use to their advantage. For example, many countries2 are implementing corporate climate disclosure policies to help meet climate commitments made in these fora; some of these disclosure requirements have implications for foreign trading partners, including the U.S. Maintaining a seat at the table ensures the U.S. can directly shape global energy and climate rules rather than simply react to them. Active participation also strengthens U.S. foreign policy by advancing American economic, security, and technological interests while building alliances and setting standards that reflect U.S. values and priorities.

Organizations like IRENA help countries share data and approaches in renewable energy technology, policy, and trade relations as well. Participation gives U.S. policymakers, businesses and innovators a seat at the table where new initiatives and cooperative strategies are developed — especially vital as nations compete to lead in energy and industrial investment. Moreover, U.S. annual contributions to IRENA, determined by the UN sliding scale based on economy size, may seem large relative to other countries, but are minuscule in absolute terms (~$5 million, or 0.008% of the State Department’s FY 2025 budget). For a small price, the U.S.’s seat at the table is quite influential, allowing outsize impact on the organization’s strategy, budget, direction, and even leadership. Withdrawing allows countries like China to strengthen their influence in the absence of U.S. engagement.

In fact, China now dominates clean energy industries, from patented technologies3 to essential raw materials. Chinese exports of clean energy-related products through the first half of 2025 totaled $120 billion.4 By comparison, the U.S. exported just $80 billion of fossil fuel-based energy in the same period. More broadly, global investment in clean energy transitions reached a record $2.3 trillion in 20255, led by China, and exceeding fossil fuel investment by $102 billion.

Diplomatic Influence

The U.S. also withdrew from the International Energy Forum (IEF) which helps maintain an open dialogue between energy producers and consumers. Unlike the International Energy Agency (IEA), which shares similar high-level goals, the IEF is represented by both the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The IEF helps build transparency and cooperation on market stability, infrastructure investment, technology deployment, and transition pathways — discussions with real consequences for global supply chains and U.S. energy security. Leaving this platform risks reducing Washington’s influence on cooperative responses to supply and price volatility, and could have significant consequences on global energy markets and economies alike.

Finally, regardless of whether the U.S. participates in international climate discussions, the U.S. remains vulnerable to weather and climate-related disasters. In fact, communities across the U.S. spent $3.1 trillion6 in 2025 on such disasters, even without any hurricane landing in the U.S., straining budgets for local governments and families alike and leading to increased insurance rates (up by as much as 59% since 2020).7

A Leading Role for American Scientists

Consequential global climate and energy policies are negotiated in these international organizations. Stepping away from the UNFCCC and IPCC will prevent U.S. scientists and negotiators from engaging in processes that bring the world together around shared climate goals, scientific assessment, and policies that affect trade and investment.

Historically, DOE has provided global leadership by fostering collaboration across other federal agencies and partner countries to contribute to these conversations by harnessing the braintrust and scientific innovation available at U.S. national laboratories. For instance, DOE previously launched the Net Zero World Initiative to provide domestic and international leadership on strategies to accelerate the decarbonization of global energy systems.

DOE has also provided leadership through Mission Innovation, a multinational initiative of 22 partner countries and the EU, that catalyzes “global collaboration on clean energy research, development, and demonstration.” The U.S. has helped lead efforts in this space by co-leading the Zero Emissions Shipping, Clean Hydrogen, and Carbon Dioxide Removal Missions.

At the End of the Day

Supporters of this withdrawal from international fora argue it protects sovereignty or reduces costs. But in practice, doing so relinquishes our diplomatic influence — and future economic opportunity — to nations that are accelerating clean energy deployment and shaping the energy standards of tomorrow. U.S. absence from these international organizations can create a signal to investors and trading partners that American leadership is no longer interested in these issues - issues that will define global economic growth, energy infrastructure, and environmental resilience for decades.

###

This piece was drafted by trusted and vetted alumni of the U.S. Department of Energy. Any views and opinions expressed are that of the author(s) and do not reflect those of the DOE Alumni Network.