Climate Leadership at Stake 

Diya Ravi

August 1, 2025

Over the past four presidencies, the U.S. has been swinging in and out of the Paris Climate Agreement, an agreement made in 2015 signed by more than 190 countries, limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, but preferably 1.5. Americans are no strangers to the volatility in climate policy; however, Donald Trump’s second term marks a deeper shift that goes beyond the skepticism and even starts dismantling the tools the federal government has been using to address climate change. 

The Trump administration’s move to undo the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) 2009 “endangerment finding” has been central to this campaign. The finding declared that greenhouse gas emissions harm human health. Under the Clean Air Act, the finding underpins the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions. Eliminating it would essentially close off the government’s most powerful legal channels for addressing climate change. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the plan “the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,” reflecting an agency now more focused on removing restrictions than protecting public health.

This move isn’t happening in isolation. It’s part of a sweeping rollback of climate and environmental initiatives. Trump has revived support for coal, signing orders to lift pollution limits on coal and gas plants. Incentives for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles—expanded under President Biden—are now being slashed. Republicans have also aimed at California’s authority to ban gas-powered car sales by 2035, and national tailpipe emissions standards are expected to be overturned.

The politicization of climate science itself is more alarming. The authors of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment have been fired, the administration removed past versions of government websites, and barred U.S. scientists from contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next major report. Trump officials have commissioned a report from five climate skeptics to justify the rollback of the endangerment finding. Critics argue the report is a legal tool – not a scientific one – crafted to sow doubt rather than analyze evidence. 

Chris Wright, an energy secretary, prefaced the report by downplaying the climate change threat, but still prefaced the report by acknowledging climate change. He claimed “global energy poverty” is a greater concern—an opinion far from the scientific consensus. Experts like Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M argue the report represents a dangerous departure from scientific norms. Phil Duffy, chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, warned the changes could reverse progress that has saved lives by reducing pollution. Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, likened the manipulation of science under Trump to the Soviet-era suppression of biology under Stalin.

The real-world consequences are already visible. “We’re seeing extreme heat, drought, wildfires, and flooding—just like scientists predicted, only faster,” said Katie Dykes, Connecticut’s energy and environment commissioner. She warned that by removing regulatory power, the Trump administration is shifting the burden of climate change onto communities.

Not just climate leadership is at stake, but the integrity of environmental governance itself. This year, the world will meet in Brazil to coordinate climate action, and the US, formerly a leader, will not even attend.