In a significant shift, key UN humanitarian and development organisations have reduced their emphasis on climate change in internal strategic documents. This change comes in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election, highlighting the influence of US policy on global climate action and the ongoing crisis that continues to escalate worldwide.
A Retreat from Climate Discourse
Documents obtained by The Independent reveal a noticeable decline in references to climate change by prominent UN agencies, including the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Despite the intensifying impacts of climate change—exemplified by record heatwaves, severe droughts, and unprecedented flooding—these organisations are adopting a softer tone on the issue.
This strategic alteration appears to be a response to pressures from the current US administration, which has distanced itself from international climate commitments. Catherine Pettengell, executive director of the Climate Action Network UK, expressed deep concern, stating, “The current US administration decided to withdraw from 66 international organisations, in what was a profound retreat from global cooperation that is actively undermining the collective safety and health of people everywhere.” She emphasised the need for the UN to remain steadfast in addressing climate concerns, despite funding challenges posed by the US.
Evidence of the Shift
Recent analyses indicate that documents from countries particularly vulnerable to climate impacts have significantly cut mentions of climate-related issues since Trump assumed office again. For instance, strategic plans for Rwanda, Iraq, and Guatemala saw mentions of “climate” drop from 31, 23, and 41 references respectively during Trump’s first term to just two, one, and none in the latest plans. This trend raises alarms about the future of development programmes reliant on climate adaptation and resilience.
Mauricio Vazquez from the think tank ODI Global noted that the WFP has historically been heavily funded by the US, and these changes may be an effort to align with the political landscape in order to secure necessary financial support. “WFP has always received particularly high US funding… This shift from agencies is happening to ensure their survival,” he explained.
Broader Implications for Global Aid
The implications of this shift extend beyond mere language alterations. The World Bank recently adjusted its climate-related lending targets, a move seen as symptomatic of a larger trend in which international organisations are responding to US influence. With the WFP aiming to assist 110 million people in 2026 amid rising food insecurity, the reduced focus on climate change could jeopardise the effectiveness of these programmes, according to experts.
Karen Mathiasen from the Center for Global Development highlighted the importance of UN strategies, stating, “They are more than communications documents; they help shape an agency’s strategic direction.” The UN Development Programme (UNDP) also mirrored this trend, decreasing explicit mentions of climate in its strategic plans from 25 to 15 over a mere few years, indicating a worrying shift in priorities.
Uneven Responses Across Agencies
Interestingly, not all UN agencies are experiencing the same reduction in climate language. While the WFP and UNHCR have noticeably scaled back, UNICEF has maintained or even increased climate-related references in its strategies. This discrepancy may stem from UNICEF’s lower dependence on US funding compared to other agencies. However, some countries, such as Argentina, have entirely removed climate mentions, reflecting local political dynamics that align with Trump’s scepticism about climate change.
In response to the findings, representatives from various UN agencies defended their commitment to addressing climate issues. An IOM spokesperson reaffirmed that “climate mobility remains central to IOM’s mandate and operational response,” while UNHCR officials acknowledged climate change as an “existential threat” for displaced populations, despite the apparent reduction in formal references.
Why it Matters
The diminishing focus on climate change within UN strategies underscores a troubling trend in global governance, where political considerations override urgent humanitarian and ecological needs. As the climate crisis accelerates, this shift could have dire consequences for vulnerable communities worldwide, hampering their resilience and capacity to adapt. The reality is clear: as political narratives shift, the stakes for climate action and international cooperation have never been higher.
