The Global Cost of U.S. Climate Denial: Vulnerable States and Increasing Climate Risk

Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) repealed the bedrock 2009 “endangerment finding” on February 12, 2026, eliminating the legal basis for federal and state lawmakers to pass regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The finding, which was based on more than 200 pages of evidence, recognized the risk that greenhouse gases pose to public health and wellbeing. The repeal wasn’t unanticipated—Lee Zeldin, the current administrator of the EPA, has urged for a repeal since February 2025, a month after President Donald Trump took office.

Trump’s stance against regulating climate change was established early in his first administration. In June 2017, Trump made the official decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, an international treaty aimed at keeping the rise in global temperatures to below two degrees Celsius. The U.S. was the first country to withdraw from the accord. Its decision, however, would make it harder and more costly for other countries to meet the two degree goal because of the need for more expensive emission cuts to achieve the same global temperature targets. In addition, its absence in the accord leads to a 38.2 percent decrease in total global emissions reductions, hindering the ability of the international community to effectively mitigate climate change.

On his first day in office, former President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement, which Trump withdrew from for the second time during his second term. Trump also pulled the U.S. out from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and 15 other international partnerships focused on combating climate change. Established in 1992, the UNFCCC is one of the earliest international climate change treaties, under which participating parties pledged to reduce emissions. U.S. withdrawal from the UNFCCC would reduce its influence in international climate policy and its ability to hold other major emitters, such as China, accountable.

In June and July of 2025, the Trump administration also drastically reduced factory emission limits and expanded oil and gas exploration in U.S. territory, all while simultaneously dismantling federal green energy support and laying off one third of all EPA employees. Trump revealed his priorities in an executive order in April 2025, where he stated that he is intent on removing “burdensome” climate change policies that impede his goal of “unleashing American energy” and expanding American oil and gas. His goals highlight America’s steady trend towards climate deregulation and climate denialism, which endangers the environment, human communities, and natural habitats.

The Trump administration’s blatant disregard for climate policy translates directly to disregard for climate crises in other countries. In a country where per capita emissions—the average greenhouse gas emissions produced per person annually—are three times higher than the global average of 5.3 tons per year and national emissions account for 13 percent of the global total, it’s clear that the U.S. is a huge catalyst of climate change.

While high-income countries drive climate change, unstable and low-income countries are the ones receiving the brunt end of climate crises. Many of these countries have highly agrarian economies, making droughts or extreme flooding detrimental to agriculture, jobs, and the economy. Low-income countries lack the institutional, financial, and technological resources to address and adapt to climate change, and in politically unstable countries, a lack of governmental coordination due to government weakness hinders disaster relief. Additionally, poor and run-down infrastructure may further multiply death counts. The countries most vulnerable to climate change have nothing to protect them.

Myanmar is a prime example. Ranked as one of the top three countries most affected by climate events from 1994 to 2024 according to the Climate Risk Index, Myanmar is in a dire humanitarian crisis. Coups, civil wars, and economic collapse have left about 20 million people in need of aid and internally displaced 3.5 million people. Myanmar’s military, the junta, has been carrying out systemic ethnic cleansings, leading to the deaths of thousands of ethnic Rohingyas. These conflicts left construction laws unregulated and eroded existing infrastructure. Cyclone Mocha in 2023 exacerbated this crisis. Following the category four cyclone, total disaster damages in Myanmar amounted to 3.4 percent of Myanmar’s Gross Domestic Product (the total value of all goods and services produced in a country annually), with over 80 percent of the damage occurring in Rakhine and Sagaing, areas most targeted by the junta, which used the disaster to heighten ethnic targeting. Myanmar military authorities impeded and blocked existing humanitarian aid from entering the communities in need, and healthcare infrastructure quickly collapsed, forced to turn away patients requiring medical attention. In March 2025, the U.S. also decided to cut $1.1 billion in aid to Myanmar, revealing the lack of U.S. involvement. In Myanmar, climate disaster not only destroyed communities, but also intensified state-sponsored violence and persecution.

Other examples include island nations such as Haiti. Widespread corruption in Haiti’s unstable government produces aid mismanagement and the embezzlement of aid money, rendering the government impractical in disaster relief. In 2010, Haiti experienced a 7.0 magnitude earthquake that killed 220,000 people, destroyed or severely damaged nearly 300,000 homes, and left 1.5 million people homeless. A lack of resources and an unorganized government caused people to be even more frantic, leading to an explosion in violent crime. With government distrust at an all-time high, desperate citizens, especially children, were easily coerced into joining gangs, further increasing violence. And when Tropical Storm Grace struck Haiti just two days after a 7.2 magnitude earthquake in 2021, the same cycle repeated. It is evident that climate change is far from a purely environmental issue. In Haiti, natural disasters increased political and social decline, creating a feedback loop where environmental upheavals exacerbated instability.

International aid to Haiti didn’t lead to any significant, long-term changes either. In total, governments and foundations pledged $9.3 billion in aid between 2010 and 2012, with aid coming mostly from institutions in wealthier countries able to afford such large payouts (such as the U.S.). Only $2.5 billion in aid actually made it to Haiti, most of which came in the form of short-term relief (e.g., food, band-aids, tarps). Low-effort coordination and poor accountability in aid-giving institutions led to few tangible benefits.

As situations in Myanmar and Haiti show, climate change serves as a threat multiplier and conflict catalyst. Climate events caused by climate change displace millions of people and put already weak government systems up for tasks that they cannot fulfill. Climate change worsens food and water insecurity and threatens agricultural industries. The U.S. and other wealthy Western countries are notably less vulnerable to these immediate effects of climate change due to better disaster relief and coordination, more advanced infrastructure and technology, and a greater financial and institutional capacity to rebound from disaster.Despite overwhelming evidence showing the effects of climate change and its link to conflicts and humanitarian crises, current U.S. policy reveals a lack of urgency in addressing these issues. It has been part of U.S. foreign policy to aid countries with humanitarian crises and deescalate conflict for years, according to the U.S. State Department. But when it comes to climate change, the current administration values pursuing American oil and gas over our aiding in foreign climate conflicts.

The U.S. cannot continue its indifference to climate change. The benefits of securing more American oil and gas are nowhere near the magnitude of the loss and suffering in other countries, caused by the emissions of countries like the United States. Climate policy should become both domestic policy and foreign policy. Domestic policies include revamping the EPA, regulating emissions, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and subsidizing renewable energies for a more sustainable future. In terms of foreign policy, the U.S. should actively support climate adaptation and disaster relief in countries most at risk, and re-enter and commit to global climate agreements, organizations, and initiatives. If the U.S. leads the global initiative in combating climate change, it can prevent climate-fueled conflicts, limit mass displacement, and stabilize regions critical to global security.