Imagine a world where climate action is not just stalled, but actively dismantled. That's the reality unfolding as Donald Trump, just days into 2026, launches a series of aggressive rollbacks on climate progress. It's a chilling prospect, and if you care about the future of our planet, you need to understand what's happening.
Despite being the world’s second-largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases and historically the biggest contributor to global warming, the US administration appears to be systematically distancing itself from both acknowledging and tackling the climate crisis. Think about that for a moment: the nation most responsible for the problem is now actively avoiding solutions. Last year's absence at COP30, coupled with the removal of all mentions of fossil fuels from the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, paints a disturbing picture. Meanwhile, Trump's relentless promotion of fossil fuels with his "drill baby drill" mantra is extending globally.
So, let's break down the key actions taken by the POTUS in the first two weeks of 2026 – actions that could have devastating consequences for our planet.
US Pulls Out of UN Climate Treaty: A New Low?
Trump has been heavily criticized for withdrawing the US from a crucial climate treaty, a move described as "sinking to a new low." This sweeping retreat from global institutions was formalized in a Presidential Memorandum signed on January 7th. Trump argued that remaining a member of, participating in, or supporting over 60 international organizations, treaties, and conventions is "contrary to the interests of the US." This includes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which aims to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading authority on climate science.
Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), aptly stated, "At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat." But here's where it gets controversial... Brown also points out that withdrawing from the UNFCCC doesn't absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change, as affirmed by the world’s highest court last year. Does this mean the US could still be held accountable for its climate impact, even outside the treaty? What do you think?
Seizing Control of Venezuela's Oil: A Fossil Fuel Grab?
Following a controversial raid by US special forces that resulted in the capture of Venezuela's President and his wife, Trump has openly expressed interest in the country’s vast oil reserves. Venezuela holds the largest proven crude oil reserves globally, estimated at 303 billion barrels (Bbbl), surpassing even Saudi Arabia and Iran. Trump immediately declared that the US would be "very strongly involved" in Venezuela's oil industry, with plans to deploy large US firms to repair the country's oil infrastructure and "start making money for the country." In an interview on January 8th, he suggested the US could exploit Venezuela's oil reserves for years to come.
"In an era of accelerating climate breakdown, eyeing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves this way is both reckless and dangerous,” warns Mads Christensen from Greenpeace International. And this is the part most people miss... Christensen emphasizes the need for a just transition away from fossil fuels, one that prioritizes health, ecosystems, and communities over short-term profits. But is it realistic to expect a rapid transition away from oil when so much of the global economy still relies on it? Is a “just transition” even possible when considering the immense economic and political power of the oil industry?
New Dietary Guidelines: Beef Takes Center Stage
The US Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture have faced criticism for their 2026 dietary guidelines, which encourage American households to prioritize diets based on "whole, nutrient-dense food." The new food pyramid prominently features a red steak and ground beef at the top of the "protein" section. But here's the problem: beef production is responsible for significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to plant-based alternatives like beans and lentils – about 20 times more per gram of protein. While beans and lentils are mentioned in the full guidelines, their absence from the food pyramid sends a conflicting message.
"While there are many ways to meet our protein needs, not all protein sources have the same impact on people or the planet,” explains Raychel Santo, a food and climate researcher at the World Resources Institute (WRI). Santo highlights the high environmental costs associated with beef and lamb, including significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water pollution per ounce of protein compared to most alternatives. Is this just a matter of personal choice, or should governments actively discourage the consumption of environmentally damaging foods? Does the food pyramid reflect actual nutritional science, or is it influenced by powerful agricultural lobbies?
Blocking Renewable Energy: A Setback for Green Initiatives
Last year, the Trump administration suspended leases on all US offshore wind projects, citing national security concerns. This decision halted progress on five sites, including Ørsted’s Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind farms, as well as projects owned by Equinor and Dominion Energy. This followed Trump's consistent criticism of renewable energy, which he has previously labeled the "scam of the century." The consequences have been costly, extending into the new year. Just last week, Ørsted launched a legal challenge against the US government's suspension, arguing that it had already secured all necessary federal and state permits back in 2023. The Sunrise Wind project alone is estimated to cost the developer upwards of $1 million per day (around €859,100). The interior department claimed the pause would allow the government to "work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects." But is this a genuine concern, or simply a convenient excuse to stifle the growth of renewable energy sources? Is the government prioritizing fossil fuels over national security by hindering wind energy production?
Trump's Fascination with Greenland: A Mineral Grab in Disguise?
Trump’s growing obsession with Greenland has sparked concerns from environmentalists regarding its critical mineral resources, deemed “essential” for the green energy transition. A 2023 survey revealed that 25 of the 34 minerals classified as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission are found in Greenland. The nation is estimated to hold between 36 and 42 million metric tons of rare earth oxides, making it the second-largest reserve after China. Accessing these resources could help the US reduce its dependence on China, which currently processes over 90 per cent of the world’s rare earth minerals, and strengthen the US's position as demand increases. Since his first term, Trump has been trying to address this issue – passing bills to increase American mineral production and stepping up deep-sea mining within both US and international waters. However, some experts believe Greenland’s mineral reserves might be a smokescreen for Trump’s true intentions. What if the pursuit of these minerals leads to further environmental degradation in Greenland, undermining the very green energy transition they are supposed to support? Is the US repeating historical patterns of resource exploitation, even under the guise of environmental progress?
These are just some of the climate-related actions taken by the Trump administration in the first few days of 2026. What do you think of these policies? Are they justifiable in the name of economic growth or national security, or are they a dangerous step backward in the fight against climate change? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
