But whatever decision the US makes, its action or inaction will have a major impact, experts say.
The US could use even a minimal presence to thwart other countries’ efforts, said Jean Su of the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group.
“It’s not productive for the Trump administration to be there if we’re really serious about tackling fossil fuels,” Su said.
“They have the ability to stall any single decision that comes out of COP.”’
“
Climate change is a real thing. Here’s how we think we might make progress on it. Here’s the trade-offs that are involved. If I had a great platform to do that, I think I’d go.
Chris Wright, energy secretary, United States
‘Great platform’
Last year’s COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan produced limited results.
An agreed-upon end goal of US$1.3 trillion in annual climate finance commitments and notably a $300 billion commitment from developed countries was criticised by developing countries as insufficient.
COP29 took place immediately after the US presidential election in 2024, and Trump’s looming presence was palpable, attendees and dignitaries said at the time.
Soon after being sworn into office in January, Trump announced he would pull the US out of the 2015 Paris Agreement that aims to limit average global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Trump made the same move during his first term in office.
The newer iteration of the US withdrawal does not take effect until next year, giving the administration room to participate in Brazil.
But its impact along with the Trump administration’s overtures to the fossil fuel industry will likely be felt at the global meeting.
In a potential preview of its approach to COP30, the US has declined to sign onto a World Bank statement reaffirming efforts to combat climate change.
The Trump administration has moved aggressively to promote the use of fossil fuels by expanding oil and gas lease sales, trying to re-open shuttered coal mines and supporting the end of tax breaks for renewable forms of energy.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright indicated last month that he would not be opposed to attending COP30.
“I would not be at all against going, if I had an audience and a platform to engage with the world,” Wright told Bloomberg. “Climate change is a real thing. Here’s how we think we might make progress on it. Here’s the trade-offs that are involved.
“If I had a great platform to do that, I think I’d go.”
‘Global climate scam’
Following Wright’s comments, a coalition of conservative groups wrote to him, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin urging them not to send a delegation to Brazil.
“The message sent by not sending a delegation to COP30 is that the US will no longer be a victim of the global climate scam,” said the letter signed by groups including the Heartland Institute and the American Lands Council.
“The message it sends to the American people is that the Trump administration is putting America first.”
Attending COP30 “just sends the wrong message,” said Steve Milloy of the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, one of the groups that organised the letter.
“There’s no point to attending,” he told Context. “Even when the US played, nothing really happened.”
Neither the Energy Department, Interior Department nor EPA responded to questions about the letter and their COP30 plans.
A request for comment sent to the White House generated an automated response that the government shutdown could result in delayed replies and blamed Democrats for the impasse.
The lack of a major US presence at COP30 could embolden other big emitters like China and India to slow down meaningful action, notably on climate finance.
But Milloy noted that the US could ignore any final agreement.
“There’s no way the UN can come up with an agreement that’s going to bind the US,” he said.
Su said the Trump administration could be a “lethal” player in the proceedings.
“They play, arguably, an even more fatalistic role in the negotiations if they are there than if they are not,” she said.
“Consequences are very real if the administration decides to go this year.”
This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit https://www.context.news/.
