EPA Chief Calls Paris Agreement ‘A Bad Deal’ Amid Internal White House Struggle

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt weighed in on an issue the Trump administration has been silent on since taking the reins of government in January.

Pruitt said the Paris climate agreement was “a bad deal” that should have been treated by the Obama administration as a treaty, instead of an executive agreement.

“I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through senate confirmation,” Pruitt told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Thursday morning. “That’s a concern.”

Pruitt’s comments, first reported by Reuters, is the first time a top Trump administration official has weighed in on the agreement since January. Most reporters, however, focused on Pruitt’s remarks that carbon dioxide is not a “primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

One former EPA transition team member was pleased with Pruitt’s remarks. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has long been a critic of the Paris agreement.

Pruitt’s remarks come amid reports of an internal struggle over whether or not to stay in the United Nations global warming pact, which President Barack Obama made the U.S. party to in 2016 without Senate consent.

One one side, Ivanka Trump, White House adviser Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are urging Trump to stay in the Paris agreement, sources told Politico and The New York Times.

Such reports came on the heels of news Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order” on the EPA’s climate regulations, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Ivanka and her husband Kushner “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reported.

White House adviser Steve Bannon opposes staying in the Paris pact, according to reports. Bannon wants to exit the deal, fulfilling a major promise President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail.

“We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs,” Trump said in a May campaign speech.

But the order Ivanka and Kushner reportedly “intervened” to change the language of would have reflected Pruitt’s statements on the issue — the Paris agreement is a treaty that should have gone before the Senate.

The Obama administration called the Paris pact an executive agreement to avoid bringing it before the Senate. The U.S. Constitution requires the Senate approve of treaties but says nothing on agreements between different administrations.

Nearly 200 nations signed onto the U.N. agreement in Paris in 2015. The agreement went into effect in November. Obama unilaterally committed to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

But meeting Obama’s Paris pledge hinges on his “Climate Action Plan” being in place and even expanded. Trump’s promised to do the opposite.

“President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule,” reads Whitehouse.gov.

Read rest…

Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    Well if the New York Times “sources ” said something then who ever they are must be telling the truth . The New York Times should be renamed the New York Democrats .
    The biggest tree killing flyer wrapper on the planet .
    The Trump administration is not going to ship $ Billions to globalists and direct competitors over a con job document that will never be honoured. It was never
    presented to Congress because it would have been blown out of the water .
    If there is any doubt then put it to a vote . In fact it should be put to a vote so that
    any false pretence or delay tactic is closed off .
    Still think shutting down the coal industry and firing coal workers was a clever election promise Democrats ?
    Tax payers are owed a $Billion dollar refund(plus interest ) from the Obama payments to the UN based on unauthorized transfer of funds never approved by Congress .
    Build some schools with the refund .

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson


    Paying a Billion Dollars per year is damned expensive for “a seat at the table”. I say pay NOTHING! It’s really a worthless table at a worthless conference. Our “friends” in the EU have wanted global agreements to reduce CO2 mainly to hamstring the US economy while letting China and India slide. Without exempting China/India the EU would not be able to import steel and chemicals and keep their CO2 down. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; paying penalties to emit it and restructuring our economy to prevent it is a fool’s game. We can keep our options open without paying one thin dime.

  • Avatar



    The Paris Agreement is a lot like the whole trans-gender restroom issue. Both are manufactured by the left-media to appear as grass roots movements. They are portrayed to be boiling up as dinner table and water cooler discussions that drive American daily thought and concern. Really, how many people wake up in the morning obsessed by the latest status report on the Paris Agreements? How many of them even know what these agreements are?

    Ask Americans what is important for their lives and the Paris Agreements won’t even be mentioned by page five. The only people for whom it does matter greatly are those with ambitions to establish an alternative system of world socialist governance who need a Trojan Horse to get inside the gates.

Comments are closed