By Abdullahi Lukman
Legal experts have questioned the legality of Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Several legal experts argue the president lacks the authority to exit the treaty without Senate approval.
In a presidential memorandum, President Donald Trump ordered the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC and dozens of other international bodies, calling them contrary to US interests.
If carried out, the move would mark the first time any country has attempted to leave the UN climate convention.
Under the treaty’s rules, withdrawal requires one year’s written notice, meaning the US would remain a party for at least another year.
The administration has not clarified whether it has formally notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw.
Legal scholars say the decision raises constitutional questions because the UNFCCC was ratified by the US Senate in 1992.
Harold Hongju Koh, former legal adviser to the state department, said the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that was approved by Congress.
He and others argue that the same level of congressional consent required to enter a treaty should apply to leaving it.
The administration, however, maintains that the president has broad authority to exit international agreements.
A state department spokesperson said agencies would take steps to carry out the withdrawal, citing Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s criticism of international institutions as wasteful and harmful to US sovereignty.
Experts remain divided. Some point to historical practice in which presidents have withdrawn from treaties without congressional approval, while others say congressional silence does not equal consent.
The US Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling on which branch of government has the power to terminate treaties.
The disagreement also extends to whether a future administration could rejoin the UNFCCC without a new Senate vote. Some legal experts say withdrawal would nullify the original ratification, while others argue the 1992 Senate approval would still stand.
Beyond legal concerns, critics warn the move damages US credibility abroad. International law experts and climate advocates say the withdrawal signals retreat from global climate leadership at a time of escalating environmental crises, and reinforces perceptions of the US as an unreliable partner in long-term international commitments.
