Trump Administration Fights UN’s Global Carbon Tax Proposal
The Trump administration is actively opposing a proposed global carbon tax being considered by the United Nations (UN) this week. The measure, which is part of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) “Net-Zero Framework,” aims to impose significant penalties on carbon dioxide emissions from ships that exceed specific limits. Officials argue that this tax could raise global shipping costs by as much as 10%, ultimately impacting prices for consumers in the United States.
In a joint statement released on October 15, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy expressed strong opposition to the proposal. They emphasized that the administration will not accept any international environmental agreement deemed excessively burdensome to the U.S. or detrimental to American interests. “We will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies,” the cabinet members stated.
The IMO’s proposed carbon tax seeks to achieve net-zero emissions for global shipping “by or around” 2050. It would impose taxes ranging from $100 to $380 per ton of CO2 on qualifying ships that fail to meet emissions targets. This revenue could generate between $11 billion and $12 billion annually from 2028 to 2030, which would be directed to a UN-controlled fund, according to research from University College London.
Critics have raised concerns that this proposal resembles “taxation without representation,” as it would empower an unelected committee to set and potentially increase the tax. In response, the Trump administration is urging member states to reject the proposal and has warned of possible retaliatory measures against countries that support it. These measures may include investigations into anti-competitive practices, visa restrictions for maritime crews, and increased port fees for vessels linked to those nations.
The implications of the proposed carbon tax extend beyond the shipping industry. If the global fleet misses the IMO’s emissions targets by even 10%, the cost of emissions could escalate to between $20 billion and $30 billion annually by 2030, potentially exceeding $300 billion by 2035.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, voiced support for the administration’s stance, describing the proposal as an attempt to impose costly regulations on American businesses and consumers. He stated, “These measures threaten U.S. sovereignty, inflate energy and transport costs, and weaponize climate policy as a tool of economic coercion.” Isaac praised President Trump’s firm opposition, asserting that it prioritizes American workers and energy security.
In a similar vein, Steve Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, commended the administration’s commitment to blocking the UN measure. He remarked on Trump’s directive for his administration to take action against nations attempting to implement the tax against the U.S., highlighting a broader resistance to international climate agreements perceived as harmful to American interests.
The outcome of this week’s deliberations at the IMO could set a significant precedent for international climate policy and its implications for global trade and economic relations. The Trump administration remains steadfast in its opposition, emphasizing the need to protect American consumers and businesses from what it views as an overreach by international bodies.
