Establishment of the Climate Change Support Office

Background

Before its revocation, the 2021 executive order establishing the Climate Change Support Office (CCSO) had a noticeable impact on how climate policy was integrated into U.S. foreign relations and international cooperation. It institutionalized a specific body within the Department of State mandated to spearhead and coordinate the United States' global initiative on climate diplomacy. This setup allowed the Secretary of State, along with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, to execute precision-focused engagements in climate-related multilateral forums. The office bolstered the United States’ influence and ability to lead negotiations in international discussions surrounding clean energy transitions, emissions reductions from sectors such as aviation and shipping, as well as climate-related implications on migration and sustainable development.

Operational adjustments were manifest as the CCSO facilitated a coherent integration of climate policy within the foreign policy apparatus, ensuring that the country’s diplomatic engagements reflected climate considerations. This included increasing international climate ambition through actions that expanded upon existing commitments and encouraged other nations to align with global targets. Diplomatic directives without the necessity of rulemaking were common as the CCSO streamlined communication and cooperation with foreign counterparts, fostering trust and collective action, particularly through the climate agreements and collaborations entered into by the United States.

The executive order had indirect regulatory implications; although it was not itself directed at creating new regulations, the CCSO facilitated a cross-agency effort to ensure that climate considerations were at the forefront of policy-making. By acting as a fulcrum for integrating climate science into foreign policy, it helped to align domestic and international strategies, often prompting the reevaluation of policy priorities within other federal agencies. The existence of this office emphasized climate change as a national security concern, thereby influencing a recalibration of resources and policies concerning energy security and international environmental cooperation.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the order by President Donald Trump on January 20th, 2025, could be interpreted as part of a broader ideological shift marking a return to more conservative climate and environmental policies. This might reflect any number of ideological goals such as skepticism towards the scientific consensus on climate change, prioritization of economic growth over environmental regulation, and distrust in multilateral cooperation. Such a shift often emphasizes domestic priorities over international engagement and responds to a constituency favoring deregulatory policies and a reduced federal footprint in environmental issues.

Economic rationales could have played a significant role in the revocation, with emphasis on reducing perceived regulatory burdens on industries critical to energy development. By scaling back international obligations and diplomatic roles focused on climate change, a government may seek to redirect resources toward domestic energy independence, loosening constraints on fossil fuel industries that view stringent climate policies as a hindrance to their operations. Additionally, the narrative of energy independence and resource maximization is frequently co-opted to justify a retreat from international climate commitments.

Moreover, geopolitical considerations might have contributed to the revocation. A retraction from climate leadership could signify a recalibration of foreign policy that de-emphasizes climate crises as critical international security threats. This could be aligned with broader diplomatic strategies designed to emphasize traditional power politics and bilateral engagements over multilateral environmental initiatives perceived as less beneficial to immediate national interests. It also signals to allies and adversaries alike a shift in how the United States perceives and acts upon transboundary environmental issues.

Symbolically, the revocation reflects a domestic political statement, reaffirming promise to key constituents who favor a retraction of government expansion and oversight, particularly in domains propagated by prior administrations. By reversing previous executive actions, an administration often seeks to dismantle the legacies of predecessors and consolidate bases of support that oppose their policies. Such actions are reflective of broader political strategies aiming for ideological consistency with campaign promises and foundational party values.

Winners

The revocation of the executive order is likely to benefit certain industries, particularly those involved in traditional energy sectors such as coal, oil, and natural gas. These industries typically view international climate agreements and climate-focused offices within government as impediments to their expansion and profitability. With the removal of the CCSO, large energy companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and others stand to gain by focusing their efforts on domestic operations without the broader pressure from coordinated federal diplomatic efforts pushing for climate-related changes.

Job markets in conventional energy exploration sectors might also see a temporary uplift, with extraction and production operations ramping up in response to reduced international oversight. Regional communities dependent on fossil fuel industries could perceive this as a victory, promising a continuation of employment opportunities and economic support. Areas such as West Virginia and North Dakota could particularly feel this impact, with potential increases in employment and state revenue derived from these industries.

Certain lobby groups and political organizations advocating for less government intervention in energy markets and broader economic policies could also find themselves in a better position. By removing a key component of infrastructural climate change diplomacy, these groups may exert greater influence on domestic policy, advocating for legislative changes that align with their interests. Political capital for prominent figures within these movements may also increase as they leverage the revocation as an example of successful policy influence.

Losers

The revocation fundamentally impacts groups working towards advancing climate policies, including environmental organizations, climate activists, and scientific communities advocating for increased climate action. By dismantling a diplomatic tool specifically structured to address climate change, opportunities for international coordination and collaboration are curtailed, frustrating efforts by these groups to leverage U.S. influence in global forums.

Developing nations and small island states vulnerable to climate change effects could lose a valuable ally in the United States. The withdrawal of a dedicated office hinders the country's ability to consistently support international funding mechanisms and assistance programs aimed at mitigation and adaptation. These nations will face challenges in mustering collective support within multilateral entities, as one of the prominent nations steering climate policy engagement steps back from its established commitments.

In the wider global policy landscape, diplomatic relationships with allies that place a strong emphasis on climate change mitigation, like the European Union, may be strained. The CCSO’s functions involved advocacy and leadership in climate discussions—an essential factor in maintaining robust ties with global partners prioritizing climate action. These diplomatic strains might lead to reduced cooperation on other international issues, creating geopolitical ripple effects that extend beyond environmental policy.