The Trump administration is pressuring a small Pacific island nation to withdraw a draft resolution by the United Nations that demands greater global efforts to fight climate change and possibly pay reparations to nations that fail to reduce their emissions. This is a continuation of the US’s increased efforts to dismantle international climate change governance structures and protect major polluters from being held accountable.
The State Department, in diplomatic guidance issued to American embassies and consulates around the world this week, told its diplomats that it “strongly objects” to the draft resolution and said its adoption could
“pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
The diplomatic cable, which was obtained by The Associated Press, instructed American diplomats to lobby other countries to vote against the proposal and to urge Vanuatu, which sponsored the measure, to withdraw it.
Climate Action Framed as Economic Threat by Washington
The diplomatic cable reflects a broader ideological shift under President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed climate change as exaggerated and framed environmental regulation as an economic burden.
“President Trump has delivered a very clear message: that the U.N. and many nations of the world have gone wildly off track, exaggerating climate change into the world’s greatest threat,”
the cable stated.
This is in line with the administration’s systematic rollback of climate policies. Just earlier in the week, the U.S. revoked a scientific finding that was the basis for all greenhouse gas regulations. Last month, the U.S. announced its intention to withdraw from the U.N. climate framework treaty that forms the basis of all international climate negotiations. This is a historic retreat from international environmental diplomacy.
Vanuatu’s Resolution Rooted in Landmark International Court Ruling
The draft resolution, which has been circulated to the 193 members of the U.N.’s General Assembly and has been sponsored by Vanuatu, follows a landmark ruling that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made last July, which stated that states may be violating international law if they do not take steps to combat climate change and that states that have been impacted by climate change may be eligible to seek reparations.
Although the ICJ’s advisory opinion was not legally binding, legal experts have said that the ruling was a watershed moment in international environmental law, potentially paving the way for future lawsuits against big polluters. All U.N. member states, including the world’s biggest polluters such as the U.S., China, India, and the E.U., are signatories to the court.
Resolution Seeks Binding Climate Accountability Framework
The proposed resolution outlines the specific actions that should be taken by several nations to implement the ICJ’s findings and establish global norms. It asks nations to develop their individual climate change plans and to keep the rise of global temperatures below 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level, as per the Paris Agreement.
It also asks nations to stop giving subsidies to fossil fuel extraction and to
“provide full and prompt reparation to other States which have suffered or may suffer harm as a consequence of the breach by the respondent State of an international obligation.”
The proposal for an International Register of Damage would track losses and claims related to climate change.
The resolution is a call to survival for vulnerable countries such as Vanuatu, which is threatened by the existential danger of rising sea levels, intensifying cyclones, and coastal erosion. Ambassador Odo Tevi emphasized the initiative is designed to build multilateral collaboration and ensure the ICJ ruling is not an exercise in futility.
Human Rights and Legal Experts Warn Against Political Obstruction
Various human rights groups and legal experts have expressed their disapproval of the US efforts to block the resolution. Louis Charbonneau, the director of the U.N. division of Human Rights Watch, stated that it is the responsibility of the governments to protect human rights by addressing the environmental destruction.
“Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus and continue to support reliance on harmful fossil fuels,”
he said.
Candy Ofime, a researcher on climate justice for Amnesty International, said the resolution has the potential to hold developed, polluting nations liable politically and financially.
“It’s a draft resolution that’s trying to bring some of the principles of international law to life and turn them into a roadmap for holding nations accountable. That’s something that’s naturally going to spark opposition.”
U.S. Claims ‘UN Overreach’ Despite Scientific Consensus
In the cable, the State Department complained that the resolution was an example of overreach by the U.N., which was relying on “speculative climate models” and was trying to hold countries to account for things they had not agreed to. This was to be used as an argument by U.S. diplomats.
But the reality is that there is no question about human-caused climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that human activity has already raised the temperature of the Earth by 1.2 degrees Celsius, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are continuing to rise. Climate-related disasters, including record heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and storms, have already cost trillions of dollars and displaced tens of millions of people.
In 2023 alone, global economic losses from extreme weather exceeded $280 billion, according to reinsurance firm Munich Re, while the World Bank estimates that climate impacts could push more than 130 million people into poverty by 2030.
Major Powers Quietly Align with U.S. Resistance
The State Department cable asserted that other major economies—including G7 members, China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia—have expressed concerns about aspects of the resolution. Analysts say this highlights a broader reluctance among powerful states to accept legally grounded climate liability, despite their disproportionate contribution to global emissions.
A Defining Test for Global Climate Governance
Although these resolutions are not legally binding, they do have considerable political influence and can be used to inform future treaties. The ICJ’s opinion has already been established to be a legal obligation to combat climate change, and the new Vanuatu-backed resolution may hasten the development of enforceable climate law worldwide.
Some have accused the U.S.’s opposition to the resolution of being part of a larger problem: the tension between climate justice and fossil fuel interests. As a nation that accounts for 25 percent of cumulative worldwide CO? emissions, any reparations effort could have significant financial and geopolitical implications.
As Vanuatu pushes for a vote by the end of March, the resolution is emerging as a critical battleground over climate accountability, global equity, and the future of international environmental law.