Trump's second term has started with a bang, but not in a good way. The US has been notably absent from key international climate talks. This isn't just a minor oversight; it's a significant shift from Trump's first term. Back then, even though the US had pulled out of the Paris Agreement, officials still showed up to UNFCCC meetings. But now? Crickets.

The US has skipped at least four major climate meetings in recent weeks. This includes a UNFCCC climate finance committee meeting and an expert group meeting aimed at helping poorer countries tackle climate change. The US Department of State official who usually sits on the committee was a no-show, and a USAid official also missed their meeting. This isn't just about missing a few meetings; it's about the message it sends.

Trump has also blocked US government scientists from attending an IPCC meeting. This is a big deal because the IPCC is preparing its seventh major report on the state of the climate crisis. The absence of US scientists raises questions about the extent to which the Trump administration will engage in international climate talks during his second term.

The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, even skipped the G20 summit, citing it as a waste of taxpayer money and a platform for anti-Americanism. This move has left many wondering about the US's commitment to global climate efforts.

Experts are concerned. Timo Leiter, a policy fellow at the London School of Economics, called the blocking of US scientists from the IPCC meeting a "troubling sign. " He also noted the lack of communication from the state department since the start of Trump's second term, which he found unusual and worrying.

A group of 20 ministers from developed and developing countries, including the EU, the UK, and several small island states, wrote an open letter calling for the IPCC to be informed by the best and latest available science. They emphasized the importance of making decisions about the planet's future based on strong evidence.

Trump has also rescinded $4 billion pledged to the Green Climate Fund, which was established to help poorer nations tackle the climate crisis. This move has raised concerns about the US's commitment to global climate efforts and its influence on international negotiations.

The prospect of the US no longer engaging in international climate talks is raising concerns among experts about its dwindling influence on global efforts to tackle climate change. The US "won’t be as vocal or visible" as it has in the past, leaving a "power gap" that could be filled by petrostates with lower climate ambitions.

The future of the climate change office within the state department is also uncertain. It's possible that the office will be dramatically reduced in size or eliminated altogether. The United Nations has said the US will formally leave the Paris agreement on 27 January 2026.

Climate Change: Trump's Second Term and the US's Missing Act

The world needs a solid plan to tackle the rising threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This means turning the best scientific evidence into actionable policies. In 2024, the United Nations highlighted the need for a scientific panel on AMR. This panel could fill crucial gaps in global coordination, provide real-time evidence for policy decisions, and track progress towards AMR goals.

But how should this panel be designed? Looking at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we see both successes and failures. The IPCC has done well in bringing together scientists and policymakers, but it also faces challenges like slow processes and political influence.

For the Scientific Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR (SPEA), we need to think about what it should do. It should facilitate global cooperation, offer up-to-date evidence, and monitor AMR targets. Two models come to mind: intergovernmental or fully independent.

An intergovernmental panel would involve countries working together, which could boost cooperation. But it might also face delays and political pressure. On the other hand, an independent panel could offer quicker, unbiased insights. However, it might struggle with acceptance and implementation of its recommendations.

Both models have their pros and cons. The key is to make sure the SPEA can provide reliable, timely evidence to fight AMR. The UN's recent push for this panel is a big chance to step up global AMR governance.