In a forceful statement on October 16, 2025, former President Donald J. Trump declared on social media:
“I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax. The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams. Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!”
Trump’s remarks come at a tense moment, as member states of the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) are meeting in London to vote on a contentious proposal to levy a carbon pricing regime on international shipping.
What’s at Stake: The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework
The measure being debated is part of what the IMO calls its Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a plan to impose carbon fees or penalties on ships whose emissions exceed defined thresholds.
Under prior agreement in April, member states endorsed the framework in principle; this week’s meeting is meant to formalize the rules and adoption details.
The scheme would apply to large vessels (typically over 5,000 gross tonnage), which account for roughly 85 % of shipping emissions.
Revenues from excess emissions would feed into a “Net-Zero Fund,” intended to support cleaner fuels, infrastructure, and assistance for climate-vulnerable nations.
Advocates argue that a global scheme is essential to avoid a fragmented patchwork of national regulations, which could complicate trade and hamper decarbonization.
U.S. Opposition and Pressure Campaign
The Trump administration has made its opposition abundantly clear:
The U.S. already formally rejected the framework in August 2025, citing concerns about economic burdens on American consumers, energy sectors, and exporters.
In recent days, the U.S. has escalated its tactics, warning nations that support the carbon tax may face retaliatory actions such as visa restrictions, tariffs, or denial of port access for their ships.
U.S. officials have labeled the proposal a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations” and floated procedural changes that would require ratification votes, thereby slowing or blocking adoption.
In calling the policy a “Green New Scam Tax,” Trump frames it as a hidden financial burden on Americans, and promises that the U.S. “will not stand for” its imposition.
Some analysts view the U.S. position as risky: if the IMO framework passes and the U.S. does not comply, there could be practical challenges in avoiding its effects, including inspections or penalties on noncompliant vessels under the new regime.
International Response & Likelihood of Passage
Despite U.S. pressure, many countries and shipping-industry associations support adoption of the framework. Nearly 200 shipping firms have voiced backing for a uniform global approach to emissions pricing.
The EU and numerous maritime states see the framework as vital to ensuring the shipping industry contributes to global climate goals.
But divisions remain. Some developing countries question fairness and capacity to comply, and some major exporters resist increased cost burdens.
Observers suggest that even if the framework is adopted this week, implementation may be phased or delayed, and procedural maneuvers (such as requiring national ratifications) may be inserted to slow the process.
Significance and Risks
This debate touches on deeper tensions between climate diplomacy and national sovereignty:
If the IMO carbon pricing passes, it would represent a rare case of a UN agency imposing a global carbon pricing mechanism on a major industrial sector.
For the U.S., noncompliance could result in tensions, trade frictions, or difficulties in protecting its shipping interests.
For the maritime industry, stakes are high: having a unified global rule is more efficient than competing regional regimes, but the cost of compliance, fuel transitions, and infrastructure investment is nontrivial.
For climate and vulnerable nations, a global system could raise billions annually to support decarbonization efforts and mitigation in more fragile states.
Mexico continues to grapple with a crisis of kidnappings, disappearances, and drug-related violence that has left more than 30,000 people dead annually since 2018.
