Nearly 200 countries are meeting in Belém, Brazil, for COP30 (Nov. 10–21). This year the United States is not sending senior officials, breaking a long-standing practice: the White House told NPR that no high-level U.S. representatives will attend. A White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said, “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”
Background
The United States formally left the 2015 Paris Agreement in January, signaling a broader reprioritization of climate policy under the Trump administration. The Paris accord seeks to keep warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. A recent U.N. report finds the world is currently on track for roughly 2.8°C of warming by 2100; it also estimates that eliminating all current U.S. climate efforts would add about 0.1°C of warming. As Ko Barrett, deputy secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, observed, “Each fraction of a degree matters for communities facing floods, drought, and heat extremes.”
Six major U.S. policy shifts shaping its posture at COP30
1) Undermining the legal basis for federal climate rules
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched a wide deregulatory push, targeting more than two dozen rules. Central to that effort is an attempt to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding,” the legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. That finding underpins federal rules on vehicle efficiency, power-plant emissions, and other pollution controls; removing it would make it easier to roll back many climate regulations. In July the EPA argued that U.S. climate pollution is not harming people in a way that requires federal regulation.
2) Repealing emissions limits for power plants
In June the administration proposed repealing limits on greenhouse gases and other pollutants from fossil-fuel power plants. If finalized and upheld through litigation, the rule would remove controls on the second-largest U.S. source of climate pollution (after transportation). Administration officials have downplayed the U.S. share of current annual global emissions from power plants—about 3%—while critics emphasize the country’s large historical contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gases.
3) Withdrawing support for renewables and consumer incentives
Federal actions have reduced policy support for wind, solar, and other low-carbon technologies. A Republican spending law eliminated some federal tax incentives for wind and solar, and the administration has canceled more than $13 billion in funds for green energy projects while seeking to halt offshore wind development. BloombergNEF data reported a 36% drop in U.S. renewable investment in the first half of 2025. Consumer-facing programs have also been curtailed: a $7 billion grant program for local solar projects was ended, and tax credits and incentives for rooftop solar, efficient heat pumps, home insulation, and electric vehicles are set to expire or sunset in 2025 and 2026.
4) Cutting grants for climate and energy programs
Multiple federal grant programs for resilience, clean energy deployment, grid upgrades, carbon-removal research, and related projects have been canceled or reduced. Officials, grantees, contractors, and advocacy groups say the cuts have disrupted planning and undermined trust in the federal government as a partner for cities, states, and tribes. Lawmakers and energy experts warn these reductions could slow innovation, raise utility costs, and leave the power system less prepared for rising demand.
5) Reducing federal climate science capacity and removing data
The administration has pared back climate science staff and funding at agencies including NOAA, NASA, and USDA. Authors working on the next National Climate Assessment, the nation’s main synthesis of climate impacts and risks, were dismissed and the federal site hosting the most recent assessment was taken down. Long-running datasets and analyses—such as NOAA’s tracking of billion-dollar disasters—have been discontinued or scaled back, affecting the country’s ability to track disaster costs and trends.
6) Cutting disaster preparedness and FEMA grants
As extreme weather, wildfires, and storms intensify, federal preparation and mitigation grants help communities reduce future losses. The administration canceled more than $4 billion in FEMA resilience grants used for flood mitigation, evacuation planning, and hospital fortification, and has advocated shifting more responsibility to states. Local leaders and emergency managers say the sudden reduction in federal funding has left critical projects unfunded and communities more exposed to rising climate risks.
Consequences and context
Experts warn that reduced U.S. engagement internationally and weakened domestic climate action could slow collective progress and influence other countries’ choices. Some effects are already visible: lower federal support and incentives correlate with falling renewable investment and delayed projects, while cuts to science and data make planning and risk assessment harder. Although current U.S. annual emissions are smaller than in past decades, the country remains a major historical contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases, and U.S. policy changes can have outsized diplomatic and economic impacts.
At COP30 negotiators will press to advance emissions reductions, resilience, and finance for the most vulnerable countries. The absence of a high-level U.S. delegation will be felt in formal negotiations and in side events where governments, investors, and businesses coordinate. Observers say missing U.S. leadership could make it harder to secure stronger global commitments, even as many nations, cities, companies, and subnational actors continue to pursue emissions cuts and adaptation measures.
Bottom line
Ahead of COP30, the Trump administration has prioritized deregulation, expanded fossil-fuel development, and reduced federal investment in renewables, climate science, and resilience programs. Those choices reshape the U.S. role in global climate talks and have practical effects on emissions trajectories, domestic preparedness, and the nation’s scientific infrastructure.