The United States has formally withdrawn from major international climate initiatives, including the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), marking a significant retreat from global environmental cooperation. This withdrawal comes despite mounting evidence of climate impacts within American borders and record-breaking global temperatures.

Climate Damages Hit US Hard

A Climate Central analysis released shortly after the US decision reveals the substantial costs of climate-related disasters facing the country. The data presents a stark picture of climate impacts:

These figures underscore the reality that climate consequences transcend national boundaries, affecting even nations that withdraw from international cooperation frameworks.

Global Temperature Records Continue

Scientific data reinforces the urgency of climate action, with temperature records dating back to 1850 showing alarming trends. The last three years have registered as the hottest on record globally, indicating an acceleration of warming trends. Climate scientists warn that the world may have already reached or exceeded the critical 1.5°C warming threshold above pre-industrial levels, a tipping point that could trigger irreversible climate changes.

Emission Responsibility Debates

The US withdrawal reflects ongoing tensions over climate responsibilities between developed and developing nations. American businesses have criticized climate frameworks, arguing they impose mitigation burdens without equivalent commitments from major emitters like China and India. However, data shows significant disparities in per capita emissions, with developing nations producing substantially lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions compared to the United States.

Historical emissions data also reveals that Western nations, including the US, contributed the majority of atmospheric greenhouse gases during their industrial development phases. This historical context shapes current debates over equitable climate action and financial responsibilities.

Global Climate Finance Challenges

Climate mitigation efforts require substantial financial resources that present challenges for both developed and developing nations. Developing countries face funding constraints for necessary climate adaptations and clean energy transitions, while wealthy nations have shown reluctance to provide adequate climate finance. These funding gaps complicate global efforts to address climate change effectively.

Path Forward for International Cooperation

Despite the US withdrawal, the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" remains relevant for global climate action. This framework, which the US has previously supported in other international contexts like the World Trade Organization, recognizes varying capabilities and historical contributions of different nations. The approach offers a potential pathway for continued international cooperation on climate issues, even without full US participation in formal climate agreements.

Eurasia Group has identified the United States as the world's most significant risk factor for 2026, marking a dramatic shift in global risk assessment. According to the firm's Top Risks 2026 report, President Trump's ongoing political revolution is creating unprecedented uncertainty across global markets, international alliances, and trade relationships.

America Emerges as Primary Global Risk

Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer explained in a CNBC-TV18 interview that the US has surpassed traditional risk factors like China, Russia, or artificial intelligence concerns. The assessment centers on Trump's active efforts to weaken institutional checks, politicize state apparatus, and fundamentally redefine power structures within American governance.

Bremmer emphasized that while Washington's consolidation approach has delivered short-term victories in trade negotiations and energy geopolitics, the longer-term consequences prove destabilizing. "A more unpredictable Washington weakens alliances, unsettles markets and accelerates a fragmented and conflict-prone world," he stated, highlighting how US policy volatility itself has become a systemic economic risk.

Three Factors Behind Predicted Revolutionary Failure

Despite the aggressive political transformation efforts, Bremmer outlined three key reasons why Trump's political revolution will ultimately fail:

Limited Popular Support: Bremmer anticipates Republican losses in upcoming midterm elections, potentially rendering Trump a lame duck and weakening his influence within his own party.

Institutional Resistance: Courts have already begun constraining executive power through rulings that limit trade authorities and overturn attempts to deploy federal forces domestically. The judiciary, federal structure, and professional military continue serving as crucial guardrails.

Strategic Lack of Focus: Bremmer argued that successful political revolutions require singular concentration. "If you want to destroy your principal enemy, you focus on that," he explained, noting that Trump's scattered attention across issues like Greenland, Venezuela, and trade theatrics undermines strategic execution.

Trade Policy Creates Legal Uncertainty

Trade relationships represent the most immediate channel through which US political risk affects global markets. Trump's tariff implementation under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) faces increasing judicial scrutiny, with Bremmer noting the law was never designed for use against "90-plus countries for political purposes" absent genuine national emergencies.

While Bremmer stopped short of predicting specific Supreme Court outcomes, he expects judicial intervention to constrain, though not completely dismantle, Trump's tariff authorities. This creates what he describes as a "dangerous grey zone" where tariffs may persist short-term while rising legal uncertainty complicates investment and supply chain decisions.

Global Implications and Market Response

The assessment carries immediate implications for countries like India and other major economies that must navigate increasingly volatile US policy positions. Washington's simultaneous use of tariffs and sanctions as economic coercion tools adds another layer of complexity to international business relationships.

Markets now face the challenge of pricing in political risk from what has traditionally been considered the world's most stable major economy. The combination of policy unpredictability and institutional strain creates conditions that Eurasia Group considers more destabilizing than conventional geopolitical threats.

The 2026 risk assessment reflects a fundamental shift in how political analysts view American influence on global stability, with domestic political transformation now considered a primary driver of international uncertainty.