U.S. Rejects United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

In a major policy turnabout, the Trump administration formally rejected and denounced the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), a worldwide effort to meet environmental and social challenges across the globe. The news came in a statement by Edward Heartney, Counselor for Economic and Social Affairs at the U.S. Mission to the UN, at a General Assembly session. The proclamation is a drastic change from earlier U.S. promises of international sustainability and climate action.

The UN SDGs, which were passed unanimously by global leaders in 2015 within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, present 17 major goals meant to address poverty, hunger, inequality, and environmental degradation, as well as promote education, gender equality, and economic development. The Trump administration, though, has taken a strong opposition to these objectives, citing that they are aimed at eroding U.S. sovereignty and at odds with the country's national interests.

In his UN General Assembly remarks, Heartney said that Agenda 2030 encourages "soft global governance" that he argued is contrary to American values and interests. He noted that the administration has taken the decision to correct what it perceives to be ideological overreach in climate change and gender, both of which, he said, are integrated into the SDGs. As Heartney reports, the rejection of the SDGs is consonant with the American people's will, as evidenced by the election returns that installed Trump. He flatly declared that the United States would no longer affirm or endorse the 2030 Agenda as a matter of routine.

The UN SDG rejection is consistent with a general pullback by the Trump administration from global climate and sustainability treaties. Among President Trump's first executive moves was the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, a historic global pact that sought to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change. The administration also disassociated itself from the critical climate funding programs, which also reflected its adherence to giving preference to national interests over multilateral efforts to tackle environmental matters.

Heartney's comment supports the administration's position that global sustainability initiatives must not encroach on U.S. decision-making. The administration contends that the SDGs, though framed as a global development framework, place undue limits on national policy. This view is consistent with Trump's overall "America First" strategy, which has guided choices to withdraw from international agreements seen as onerous or counter to U.S. economic growth.

Rejection of the SDGs is issued at a juncture where the United Nations has also revealed a massive budget deficit in finance to attain the 2030 Agenda. An estimated $4 trillion funding deficit exists that must be bridged to effectively accomplish the goals. Most nations utilize financial and technological assistance from richer countries, like the U.S., to get to their target of sustainability. With the U.S. retreating from these pledges, there have been fears that developing countries would no longer be able to advance work on key agendas like poverty reduction, climate action, and education and health access.

The action by the Trump administration has attracted backlash from those who believe in international cooperation and sustainability. SDG supporters maintain that international issues necessitate collaborative effort and that abandonment of the 2030 Agenda undermines actions towards addressing imminent problems like climate change and inequality. Opponents also warn that shunning the SDGs might end up isolating the U.S. from friends and partners that still support the goals.

In spite of the government's stance, states, cities, and companies in the U.S. have continued to adopt sustainability programs that are consistent with the SDGs. Most companies have incorporated the goals into their business plans, understanding that sustainability is not only a global issue but also an economic opportunity. Local governments have also adopted policies to mitigate climate change and social development, sometimes in collaboration with international bodies.

Though the Trump administration's refusal to sign on to the SDGs marks a change in federal policy, it does not necessarily mean the complete abandonment of sustainable development efforts in the U.S. Still, the action reflects the administration's wider distrust of multilateral deals and international governance structures. As the globe continues to advance with the 2030 Agenda, the lack of U.S. leadership on this front may have long-term consequences for worldwide progress on sustainability.

UN SDGs continue to be an important component of international collaboration toward building a more sustainable and equitable world. The withdrawal of the U.S. from these commitments might obligate other countries to redefine their approach to implementation of the 2030 Agenda in the absence of one of the globe's largest economies. The effect of this action in the long run will still rest in the hands of future administrations and whether they decide to rejoin the world's pursuit of sustainability.