Can the World Trump Trump with Economic Sanctions?

Ok, this might be a rougher Gaian Reflection, as I have neither a good grasp of the legal precedent nor political machinations needed to make this work, but I’ve been thinking about this for a while as a strategic question: Can the world’s governments sanction either the United States or Donald J. Trump, the Trump Organization, and Trump Administration officials as a means to force climate compliance?

The U.S. and the European Union use sanctions regularly to punish Russia and Russian officials. In fact, just last month the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Russian oil companies “as a result of Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the world in Ukraine.” And the EU continues to consider utilizing frozen Russia assets as collateral for a “reparations loan” to support Ukraine’s defense. So sanctions are a standard play in the playbook. And let’s be honest, the Trump Administration, and perhaps even the U.S. under Trump, deserves to be sanctioned.

I’ve written regularly on the Trump Administration’s environmental violations: rolling back climate rules; threatening countries not to vote for a carbon tax on shipping; overtly lying, calling climate change a “con job” and publishing a cherry-picked report saying as much. Companies increasingly are sued or barred from greenwashing their practices.¹ Governments should be as well. And this is not a little country whose policies don’t matter. The U.S. produces about 12% of CO2 emissions (more if you include imported emissions in the form of goods) and, of the top 10 emitters worldwide, has the largest per capita emissions rate (at 18 tons per person in 2019!). Moreover, the country has been responsible for about 25% of historical emissions since 1751. What the country says and does matters for the future of climate stability—meaning for the lives of billions of people, the existence of countless species, and perhaps the very fate of human civilization.²

The U.S., and more specifically the Trump Administration, cannot be allowed to just do what it wants—especially as that provides political cover for so many other bad actors (oil producing states and companies, for example) to follow suit or water down their own commitments. Moreover, we can’t expect a turnaround by the U.S. anytime soon: even if a Democrat is elected next time around, the best we’ll see is more money flowing to renewables again. A carbon tax, a shift away from meat and extreme consumer freedom (epitomized by giant trucks taking over the American landscape), or any moderate solution to climate instability is sadly beyond the realm of the politically feasible.³

Coalition of the Sinking

But what if, right now, a coalition of states sanctioned the United States? Could it have an effect? Truthfully, I can’t imagine a scenario where countries dependent on the U.S. for trade and military support would do this—and sanctions against entire countries are often criticized for hurting the people indiscriminately—but what about sanctions specifically targeting Trump, his company, and his administration?⁴ Again, I’m sure it’s a non-starter for key allies but perhaps possible for those who truly understand the existential threat climate change poses to them? Even just a coalition of small island states that will become drowned states within the next 10-20 years might be enough to shock the world out of complacency. Imagine if Fiji, the Maldives, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and a few others (of the 39 listed Small Island Developing States) announce at COP31 in 2026 (too late for this year!) that after another year of unprecedented emissions and temperature rises,⁵ and continuing hypocrisy from the Trump Administration, they are putting sanctions on Donald J. Trump, the Trump Administration and the Trump Organization. Imagine the spokesperson saying, “Starting immediately no Trump officials can visit our countries, cannot do business in our countries, and must sell off any assets in those countries within 90 days or they will be seized.” Even if there were no assets to sell or seize, the power of those words would electrify COP31 participants.⁶

Perhaps this would do nothing, just fizzle out after a few days of making the rounds in the news cycle. Though maybe it’d spark promises of additional adaptation or relocation aid from the EU, China, and others. At best, it’d catalyze other countries to follow suit: African states no longer getting development support from the U.S. (due to Trump’s dismantling of U.S. AID)? Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, and others whose countries the U.S. has wrecked over the years? Maybe even one or two free thinking democracies: Iceland maybe, or Singapore (they’re both island states after all)? Would this lead to more polarization? Perhaps, but then again it might put Trump on the defensive—lobbying (ok, threatening) states to end their sanctions rather than threatening them to vote against green shipping taxes (which are supposed to be voted on next year).

As I’m not a good chess player, I’m not sure what cascade of countermoves this would lead to. More tariffs? Countersanctions? The takeover of Tuvalu? Probably not the last, but poking the bear often triggers an overreaction, which might in turn lead to more countries getting in on the sanctions, a further marginalization of the U.S., and so on. Truthfully, the decline of the country I’m a citizen of makes me sad (and a bit nervous), but its role in rapidly destroying Gaia makes me far sadder and more nervous. And this tactic certainly should be considered if it could possibly work.

Not Crazy to Consider

And for those who have been shaking their head—or worse, rolling your eyes—at this idea, here’s something funny: in November 2019, Senator Edward Markey introduced the Targeting Environmental and Climate Recklessness Act (TECRA) into the Senate. This bill (introduced a few months later into the House) would have implemented sanctions on those causing “significant excess greenhouse gas emissions,” “significant or illegal deforestation,” or “knowingly misrepresenting the environmental impact of a project, investment, or product, including by misrepresenting emissions.” So, certainly not a crazy idea, when ironically, even U.S. lawmakers considered it. And according to that criteria, the billionaire who called the carbon footprint “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions,” is a prime contender for targeting climate recklessness.

And if that’s not enough cover, let’s not forget that just last month the Trump Administration itself threatened to use sanctions on those countries and officials who dared to vote for the green shipping tax! The U.S. government is quick to threaten sanctions to support its climate agenda, so why shouldn’t other countries as well (just in a way that actually helps not hurts the climate). Of course, it’d be a risky move—with potential blowback I haven’t considered—but can it be much worse than one’s island going underwater even sooner than it’s forecast to? Tuvalu: perhaps that’s a good enough reason to bring together the SIDS to announce sanctions at the next climate conference?

Endnotes

1) The EU passed the Green Claims Directive, for example, and many oil companies, even a meat processor have been sued for making vague environmental statements. Most recently, 21 European airlines agreed to change their practices after being pressured by the European Commission about their green claims.

2) A new analysis from the day I’m publishing this found that Trump’s anti-environmental agenda will lead to the deaths of up to 1.3 million additional people. This has transcended politics and has become a human rights violation.

3) And real solutions like economic degrowth will remain a taboo regardless of which political party takes power. Thus mobilizing the international community to demonstrate clearly that the U.S. must follow international norms will be valuable regardless of which direction the U.S. goes.

4) I certainly wouldn’t be averse to expanding the list, such as to include: Elon Musk (as former part of the administration) and his companies, Tesla, X, and SpaceX.

5) Fossil-fuel based emissions are projected to rise 1.1% to a record 38.1 gigatons in 2025. The U.S.’s emissions are projected to grow 1.9% in 2025 vs. the EU and China’s 0.4%. Emissions in the U.S. should not be rising this fast—not as one of the most “developed” countries in the world.

6) As I was writing this, a coalition of vulnerable nations, including several SIDS, spoke up at COP30, stating that cutting emissions was a moral duty, and that their survival depended on it. Nice words, but imposing sanctions might have a far more powerful impact.