In a startling reflection of shifting political tides, key UN agencies are revising their approach to addressing climate change, significantly downplaying the issue in their strategic communications. This change comes in the wake of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, despite the escalating climate crisis manifesting through alarming heatwaves, severe droughts, and catastrophic flooding worldwide. The implications of this shift raise serious concerns about the global response to one of the most pressing challenges of our time.
A Retreat from Climate Discourse
Recent investigations reveal that prominent UN bodies, including the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), have markedly reduced their references to climate change in internal documents guiding their multi-billion-pound operations. This trend is particularly troubling given that the climate crisis continues to worsen, affecting millions globally.
Catherine Pettengell, executive director of the Climate Action Network UK, emphasises the gravity of this situation, stating, “The current US administration has retreated from global cooperation, undermining the collective safety and health of people everywhere.” This shift in rhetoric is not merely a matter of semantics; it reflects a broader hesitance to confront climate change head-on, particularly in the context of US funding, which plays a critical role in the operations of these agencies.
The Impact of US Funding Cuts
The decline in climate-related language corresponds with significant cuts to US funding for UN agencies. For instance, the WFP’s budget was slashed from $4.5 billion in 2021 to $2.1 billion, while the UNHCR saw its funding drop from $2.1 billion to £800 million. Such reductions force these organisations to navigate a delicate balance between addressing urgent humanitarian needs and adhering to political pressures from their largest donor.
Tracy Gilbert, a British MP and co-chair of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, highlights the potential repercussions of this shift: “The impact of climate change will be felt more harshly in developing countries reliant on this aid, regardless of political parties’ acceptance of the reality of climate change.” As vulnerable nations face increasing climate-related challenges, the retreat from climate discourse could exacerbate existing inequalities.
A History of Climate Advocacy
Historically, the US has been a cornerstone of support for the WFP, established following recommendations from President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Mauricio Vazquez from ODI Global notes that this funding has traditionally been vital for the WFP’s operations. “This shift from agencies is happening to ensure their survival,” he explains, underscoring the precarious position these organisations find themselves in as they adapt to the changing political landscape.
Exemplifying this trend, countries like Rwanda, Iraq, and Guatemala—a few of the most climate-vulnerable nations—have dramatically decreased their mentions of “climate” in strategy documents since Trump’s re-election. The number of references fell from 31 to 2 for Rwanda, from 23 to 1 for Iraq, and from 41 to none for Guatemala. As these nations struggle with severe climate impacts, the marginalisation of climate language in their development strategies raises alarms about future resilience.
A Broader Shift in UN Strategy
In addition to the WFP, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) also demonstrates this trend. Its latest strategic plan for 2026–2029 reduces references to climate change from 25 in the previous plan to just 15. While the earlier document framed climate action as a “planetary emergency,” the new plan opts for a more general focus on global resilience, diluting the urgency of climate action.
This shift is echoed across various UN agencies, where references to climate increasingly serve as qualifiers rather than central themes. This framing allows for a perception that extreme weather events are merely natural occurrences rather than consequences of human-induced climate change.
The Role of Other UN Agencies
Interestingly, not all UN agencies are following this trend. UNICEF, for example, has seen an increase in climate references in its strategic plans. This is largely due to its operational framework of working closely with national governments, which diminishes the influence of major donors like the US. However, Argentina’s recent strategy has notably omitted any mention of climate change, aligning with the views of President Javier Milei, a known ally of Trump.
Responses from IOM and UNDP assert that climate issues remain integral to their mandates, with representatives claiming that their strategies continue to reflect the urgency of climate action. However, as Andrew Harper from UNHCR notes, the shrinking pool of foreign aid forces partners to prioritise immediate needs over long-term climate resilience.
Why it Matters
The apparent retreat from addressing climate change within UN agencies highlights a troubling trend influenced by shifting political dynamics in the United States. As the climate crisis grows ever more severe, the implications of this change could have far-reaching consequences for global aid and development efforts. It underscores the urgent need for international cooperation and commitment to climate action, lest we disregard the very foundations of our collective future in favour of short-term political considerations. The time for robust action is now, and the world cannot afford to ignore the climate emergency any longer.
