The US, as a global superpower, has a unique opportunity to lead by example in balancing their economic priorities with environmental responsibility
For decades, millions in developing nations have sought U.S. aid to support critical sectors such as healthcare, food security, infrastructure and development. However, with a single policy shift, that support has crumbled. Under President Donald Trump's "America First" approach, the US moved to shut down aid services to over 60 countries through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), sending shockwaves across the world.
According to government statistics, the U.S. spent $68 billion on international aid in 2023, just 0.6 per cent of its total annual government spending of $6.5 trillion. This raises a crucial question: Is the United States truly accountable for the environmental damage and resource exploitation it has contributed to globally? And if not, what kind of example does this set for future generations?
President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2020 was a clear signal that the country prioritised economic gains over environmental responsibility. Instead of strengthening environmental regulations, the administration pursued an intensified capitalist approach, disregarding the long-term consequences of climate change. Studies suggest that if major emitters like the U.S. implement stronger environmental policies, global greenhouse gas emissions could decline sharply. Beyond withdrawing from international climate agreements, the US has also slashed funding for climate resilience programmes in developing nations. Between 2017 and 2020, the Trump administration cut nearly $1 billion in global climate aid, reducing contributions to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This decision has left many vulnerable nations struggling to finance mitigation projects, further widening the gap between wealthy polluters and those who suffer the most from climate disasters.
While the US has withdrawn from its climate responsibilities, China and the European Union have made significant commitments. China has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 and has invested heavily in renewable energy. Meanwhile, the EU continues to push for stricter environmental policies, despite facing economic challenges. Without the US leading by example, these efforts alone may not be enough to meet global climate goals.
The Trump administration has long faced scrutiny over its stance on climate accountability. During his previous term, the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, dismissing it as an 'unfair, one-sided rip-off'. Upon resuming office in 2025, he swiftly reinforced this position by signing an executive order on stage in Washington, D.C. to the applause of supporters. Beyond these policy shifts, the US has also blocked its experts from attending key meetings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has been absent from several major international climate discussions.
The effects of this approach are already visible. Global temperatures are rising, and if the US fails to meet its nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, the cumulative global carbon emissions could increase by 10 per cent (220 Gt CO₂), reducing the probability of keeping warming below 2°C from 26 per cent to just 18 per cent.
Climate-induced disasters are escalating, with Nepal classified as a high-risk country for floods, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), landslides and droughts. While economic data may suggest rising household incomes, the growing threat of climate disasters means these gains may not be sustainable in the long run.
Developed nations provide international aid not merely as an act of generosity but also as a way to compensate for the unsustainable development that has historically fueled their own progress. Yet, public perception in the US reflects a troubling disconnect. Polls indicate that 9 out of 10 Republicans and 55 per cent of Democrats believe the US spends too much on foreign aid, highlighting a lack of awareness regarding their country's global responsibilities.
While concerns over the misuse of foreign aid funds are valid, it is important to recognise the positive impact of USAID. The agency has played a critical role in global initiatives, such as coca eradication in Peru, conservation efforts in the Brazilian Amazon and humanitarian aid in Colombia and Venezuela.
In Nepal, USAID has been instrumental in several key development milestones. The agency supported the construction of the country's first roads and telephone exchanges, effectively eradicated malaria in the tarai region, transforming it into an agricultural hub, raised literacy rates, significantly reduced child mortality, and played a crucial role in promoting peace and democracy. USAID has also contributed to Nepal's transition toward stability, strengthening government capacities in disaster risk reduction.
As citizens of a developing nation, Nepal, we must recognise the importance of holding both donors and recipients accountable for the utilisation of aid funds. International aid should not be seen as a donation but as a form of climate justice, compensation for the environmental degradation caused by industrialised nations. Developing countries, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change, must ensure that such funds are used efficiently while advocating for stronger commitments from nations that have historically contributed the most to the crisis.
The US, as a global superpower, has a unique opportunity to lead by example in balancing their economic priorities with environmental responsibility. The future of climate justice depends on the willingness of powerful nations to take responsibility for their actions, rather than expecting vulnerable nations to bear the consequences alone.
Deuba is a Sustainable Development student in Sweden, with a focus on climate justice and international aid