A coalition of conservative energy and environmental organizations is urging the Trump administration to boycott the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference. This gathering is set to take place in Brazil in November 2025 and will feature global leaders discussing strategies to tackle climate change. However, many in the coalition view the conference as yet another effort that undermines American interests.
President Trump has been vocal about his views on climate change, recently calling it the “greatest con job ever.” He argues that the U.N. conference represents an international effort aimed at harming the U.S. energy system and economy. In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, seven groups—including the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and the American Energy Institute—assert that participation in the conference offers no benefits to America… “As President Trump rightly moves our nation away from climate alarmism,” the letter asserts, “there is nothing to be gained from participating in an anti-American international effort.”
The U.S. has attended U.N. climate conferences since 1995, but the coalition claims that these meetings have yielded little in the way of environmental improvements. Instead, they contend these summits have wasted taxpayer money while pushing costly policies that ultimately damage the U.S. economy. Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, emphasized this point, stating, “It’s time America walked away from the U.N.’s endless climate conferences, which have never improved the environment but have impoverished billions while enriching China.”
Critics within the coalition point to significant repercussions of past U.N. treaties, noting how the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement left many countries vulnerable. The letter outlines the detrimental impacts these agreements have had, including rising energy prices and heightened dependence on foreign nations for energy. The assertion is that these policies have not only strained the U.S. economy but have also undermined national security.
Heartland Institute President James Taylor echoed the coalition’s sentiments. He argued that the forthcoming conference would only highlight the hypocrisy of the political elite, who emit carbon dioxide through their international travels while preaching climate responsibility. “The annual U.N. climate talks exist solely to saturate the atmosphere with CO2 from people congregating from all around the globe,” Taylor said. “By not sending an official U.S. delegation, President Trump would be doing more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than all the participating nations combined.”
Since retaking the presidency, Trump has sought to dismantle several climate-related initiatives established under previous administrations. He signed an executive order known as “Unleashing American Energy,” which aimed to curtail climate-related funding stemming from the Biden administration’s policies. Trump’s opposition to strict climate regulations is underscored by his statements at the U.N. General Assembly, where he characterized the climate crisis as a “con job…” “All of these predictions made by the United Nations… were wrong,” he asserted. “They were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes.”
The coalition further argues that boycotting the conference will signal a robust stance against the so-called climate scam. They believe it demonstrates a commitment to putting American interests first. “The message it sends to the American people,” they state, “is that the Trump administration is putting America first.” They suggest that rather than participating in the U.N. meeting, the White House should host a counter conference focused on economic prosperity and resilient energy solutions for developing nations.
Steve Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, shares this perspective. He believes Trump’s recent remarks validate the rationale for not sending representatives to Brazil. Milloy argued, “President Trump this week called climate a hoax and a con job,” reinforcing the idea that participation would only confer undue legitimacy to an agenda the administration opposes. Instead, he proposed that the administration consider an event to discuss meaningful energy and economic strategies that could lift poorer nations without imposing crippling green policies.
The push for a U.S. exit from the climate conference underscores a deep-seated frustration with international climate agreements. The climate discourse continues to be highly polarized, with advocates on each side firmly entrenched in their positions. However, for the coalition of conservative groups, the emphasis remains clear: America should focus on building its own energy independence and resist what they view as misguided global initiatives.
"*" indicates required fields
