WSJ Says Trump Has Changed His Mind About Leaving the Paris Agreement

But don’t get too excited.

Niall Carson/Zuma

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Update 5:35 p.m. ET: White House spokesperson Lindsay Walters pushed back on the Wall Street Journal report in a statement, “There has been no change in the United States’ position on the Paris agreement. As the President has made abundantly clear, the United States is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Trump administration has told European officials that it won’t leave the Paris agreement

Trump administration officials said Saturday the U.S. wouldn’t pull out of the Paris Agreement, offering to re-engage in the international deal to fight climate change, according to the European Union’s top energy official.

The shift from President Donald Trump’s decision in June to renegotiate the landmark accord or craft a new deal came during a meeting of more than 30 ministers led by Canada, China and the European Union in Montreal.

“The U.S. has stated that they will not renegotiate the Paris accord, but they will try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement,” European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said.

The Paris Agreement is not legally binding, and there is no enforcement mechanism. That is why environmental groups warned earlier this year that staying in Paris “in name only” would not be the win people might think. But, as my colleague Rebecca Leber noted in May, it would still be preferable to leaving entirely “if only because it would be easier to pick up the pieces in four years if Trump isn’t reelected.”

Even if the U.S. remained, the Trump administration would not have had to do anything if they didn’t want to. “Since Paris is voluntary, there’s no concrete reason for Trump to pull out or to stay in,” Kevin Drum wrote in May. “The United States can do whatever it wants either way. The whole thing is about signaling,”

There was a lot of blowback from the international community when Trump announced he was pulling us out of Paris. Maybe they finally realized that they can weaken it without having China bring it up in every meeting by just staying in?

The timing might also be significant, considering that this comes on the heels of Trump’s reported deal on DACA, it seems likely remaining in the international climate agreement will only add to the discontent among the far right and fuel their suspicion that Trump has decided to sell them out


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend