By Christopher Burke

The re-election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency represents a pivotal moment for global climate policy and international relations (IR). The incoming administration’s support for fossil fuel development and climate skepticism poses significant challenges to the burgeoning US$1.3 trillion global energy transition market as well as structuralist assumptions of international relations (IR) theory.  Structuralists, from Kenneth Waltz to Robert Keohane, suggest the anarchic nature of the international system compels states to act in predictable ways based on systemic pressures.  This will be tested by Trump’s unilateralist approach.

President Trump’s first term in office saw fossil fuel deregulation to achieve “energy dominance” and a retreat from global climate commitments; most notably withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.  These policies prioritized immediate economic benefits and domestic energy independence over long-term environmental sustainability, drawing sharp criticism from allies and climate activists. Earlier this week, President Trump signed an Executive Order ordering a second withdrawal from the climate accord and announced that he would ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ likely to the detriment of global efforts to combat climate change.

US$2 Trillion Energy Transition Market: A Systemic Push

Global investments in clean energy are already double those in fossil fuels according to the International Energy Agency.  Total investments in the energy transition and green technology were valued at approximately US$2 trillion in 2024.

China and the European Union (EU) are leading the charge with commitments to ambitious net-zero targets and substantial resources allocated to decarbonization. China plans to have its renewable energy generation capacity account for more than 50 percent of the country’s total power generation by the end of this year while the EU's Green Deal aims to mobilize €1 trillion for climate action by 2030. Such efforts are already reshaping the global energy landscape and creating significant economic opportunities for states that embrace the green transition.

These market forces represent systemic pressures that no state, including the U.S., can ignore according to structuralism. The economic benefits of participating in the renewable energy market and the costs of lagging behind technologically advanced competitors are expected to compel states to align with global climate trends. However, President Trump’s track record suggests a preference for immediate economic gains from fossil fuels over the long-term benefits of renewable investments. This raises questions as to whether market forces alone can override the Trump administration’s resistance.

Domestic Resistance vs. Global Pressures

The U.S. domestic policy landscape under President Trump is likely to prioritize fossil fuel development as the foundations for economic growth and energy security. The Trump administration is expected to further roll back climate regulations, restrict renewable energy subsidies and revive projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline. These policies are at odds with the global push for decarbonization and could weaken the U.S.’s position in the global energy transition market.

Resistance within the U.S. itself may temper Trump’s agenda. States such as California and New York have committed to aggressive climate policies including 100% clean energy targets.   Major multinational corporations including Amazon, Google and Apple have embraced sustainability initiatives, aligning their operations with net-zero goals. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act championed by President Biden’s administration allocated US$369 billion for climate and energy security programs, laying the groundwork for continued progress under the next administration.

Civil society and environmental advocacy groups will play a critical role. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and 350.org have demonstrated resilience in their opposition to federal rollbacks and mobilization grassroots movements. A multifaceted domestic opposition could provide a counterforce to Trump’s policies, maintaining momentum for the renewable energy transition.

International Leadership

Trump’s policies could exacerbate the fragmentation of international climate governance. As the world’s largest economy and second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. wields enormous political and economic influence over global climate action. A retreat from multilateral agreements under Trump will likely embolden other nations to delay or dilute their commitments undermining collective efforts.

Other stakeholders are poised to fill the leadership vacuum.  Under the Green Deal, the EU is positioned as a global climate leader leveraging its regulatory power to shape international standards. Despite the continued reliance on coal, China has emerged as the largest producer of solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles, solidifying its dominance in the renewable energy market. These developments suggest the international system may adapt to America’s absence from climate leadership with other states and non-state actors driving the climate agenda.

Structuralism under Pressure

Structuralist IR theory assumes that the anarchic international system compels states to respond to systemic pressures such as economic interdependence and environmental crises. The global climate emergency–with record-breaking heat waves, wildfires and rising sea levels–represents a systemic shock that demands collective action, as argued by Dr. Richard Munang, an Environment and Climate Change Expert based in Kenya. Structuralists might suggest that the U.S. will ultimately align with global trends in response to the sheer scale and extent of the climate emergency.

Trump’s unilateralism and focus on short-term domestic priorities challenge this assumption. The approach of President Trump’s administration over the next 4 years will underscore the role of agency and domestic politics in shaping state behavior, raising questions about the limits of structuralism.  If the U.S. Government resists systemic pressures, it could imply that many contemporary structuralist international relations models do not accurately account for the interplay between domestic politics and global forces.

A Critical Juncture

The re-election of Donald Trump poses a significant test for structuralist IR theory and the global climate movement. While systemic pressures including the $2 trillion energy transition market and the intensifying climate crisis are powerful forces, their ability to compel a resistant U.S. administration to act remains uncertain. Domestic opposition, sub-national initiatives and international leadership will be crucial in counterbalancing Trump’s policies.

The outcome of this struggle will reveal whether structuralist assumptions about systemic pressures hold true or whether domestic politics and leadership choices can disrupt even the most pressing global trends. For the environmental movement, the stakes are nothing less than the survival of our planet.

Christopher Burke is a senior advisor at WMC Africa, a communications and advisory agency located in Kampala, Uganda. With nearly 30 years of experience, he has worked extensively on social, political and economic development issues focused on extractives, environmental issues, land governance, agriculture, community mobilization, public health, advocacy, communications, conflict mediation and peace-building in Asia and Africa.