Can the IEA survive without the US? Or will it cave in to the fossil fuel lobby?

Nobody was surprised when on his very first day back in the office President Trump announced that he was withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord for the second time.

When it was announced that the US would not bother attending the United Nations’ annual climate summit, the Conference of the Parties (COP) 30 in Brazil in Nov 2025, few were surprised and even fewer were disappointed.

Some delegates privately said that they were in fact pleased that the US was no longer attending, because it would do its best to crash the UN’s party – i.e., apply pressure on everyone else to abandon their attempts to phase out fossil fuels or anything that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

COP30 went ahead without the US – and ended without much progress – which is what usually happens at these events. Had the US been in attendance, most likely even less progress would have been accomplished.

Some politicians among the (former) US allies have privately reached similar conclusions in other areas including security, defense, international trade, aid, health, research and so on. Witness the deepening rifts within NATO, just to name one example. 

Carrying on without the US of A?

According to a 7 Jan 2026 article in The Guardian, the Trump administration has thus far withdrawn from 66 international organisations, treaties, and institutions including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The list includes 31 UN affiliated entities and 35 others covering international aid, health and development. In all cases, the organisations are surviving without the US funding and cooperation – which is a big financial loss – but the agencies can carry out their missions without the bullying and influence of the current administration.

The aim appears to be to dismantle, destroy, weaken or diminish the existing institutions the administration does not like – usually on ideological grounds – occasionally replacing them with something else that the administration can control with little say, scrutiny or oversight by others.

For example, the Board of Peace, as proposed, seems intended to bypass the UN, giving the administration a virtual monopoly in handling the Gaza peace process.

Still smiling?

The latest example of the administration’s attempts to dictate the narrative is its handling of the International Energy Agency (IEA). During its latest ministerial conference in Feb 2026, US Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, stepped up pressure on the agency to drop net zero carbon from its agenda, or else.

At a news conference Wright said, “The US will use all the pressure we have to get the IEA to eventually, in the next year or so, move away from this agenda,” calling net zero a “destructive illusion.” As if the threat was not obvious, he added:

“But if the IEA is not able to bring itself back to focusing on the mission of energy honesty, energy access and energy security, then sadly we would become an ex-member of the IEA.” 

Wright indicated that the US does “not need a net‑zero scenario” from the IEA and could leave the agency “if they insist that it’s so dominated and infused with climate stuff.” When asked about the US support for the IEA, he said:

“We’re definitely not satisfied. ….  If it goes back to what it was – it was a fabulous international data recording agency, it was getting into critical minerals, was focused on big energy issues – we’re all in on that. But if they insist that it’s so dominated and infused with climate stuff – yes, then we’re out.”

The net zero emissions target is crucial to meet the Paris climate agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels. Wright, the former CEO of the second largest US natural gas fracking company, however, is not the least interested in anything but fossil fuels.

He said there is a “0.0% chance” that net zero would be achieved – without mentioning that the Trump administration is doing its utmost to make sure this does not happen.

Dutch Deputy prime minister Sophie Hermans, who chaired the ministerial meeting, released a summary stating that a large majority of ministers “stressed the importance of the energy transition to combat climate change and highlighted the global transition to net zero.”

Fatih Birol, the executive director of the IEA, tried his best to be diplomatic – after all, his job and the agency’s future is potentially on the line.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he noted that the “fracturing in the world order” is widening divisions on energy policy, and that climate change is “moving down on the international policy agenda” – without implicating the US.

At this junction, the IEA has two options:

– It can capitulate to the US demand by becoming the International Fossil Fuel Energy Agency; or

– Stick with its broader mission, which is no longer oil-centric as it was when it was founded 52 years ago.

The Trump administration hopes for the former and it is unabashedly using its financial leverage to get what it wants. US contribution to the IEA has averaged around $6 million per year, or 14% of the agency’s budget, over the past decade.

Changing the forecast under pressure

Many are hoping that the IEA will choose the latter option and remain independent of the US heavy-handed influence. Kelly Trout, research director at Oil Change International, for example, noted points that Wright is “attempting to bully ministers and the IEA into caving to the fossil fuel lobby.”

Other observers agree that the Trump administration’s aim is to force the IEA to abandon its independence and change its narrative as it strives to maintain the dominance of fossil fuel industries. According to Trout:

“If the USA follows through on its threat to leave the IEA, the agency may have a significant budget hole to fill – but will have safeguarded the credibility, integrity, and independence of its analysis.”

Likewise, Stephan Singer, a senior advisor on global energy policy at Climate Action Network International, said he would be happy to see the US withdraw from the IEA.

Others, including Maria Pastukhova at the E3G, a think tank, agreed that the Trump administration’s views on future of energy are “disconnected from today’s economic and geopolitical reality and damaging to the global economy.”

As time goes on, more countries, institutions and organisations are likely to grudgingly come to the conclusion that they are better off to carry on as best as they can without the US.

This article was originally published by EEnergy Informer. Reproduced here with permission.