A bold claim: Trump’s pushback against a global carbon tax isn’t over—he’s determined to finish what he started. The vote on the tax was postponed for a year, and two of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet members framed that delay as a full-blown, all-hands-on-deck maneuver. Now, administration insiders are aiming to kill the measure for good and to challenge other elements tied to it in a package known as the Net-Zero Framework, or NZF.
A draft diplomatic note, or demarche, prepared by the State Department with input from the Department of Energy and other agencies, argues that the best path is to end the NZF discussion before moving on to new topics. This cable, expected to circulate to member nations of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee ahead of its meeting on April 27, reflects a push to sideline international actions on climate change. The administration’s stance has elevated the IMO—the U.N. body overseeing shipping—with its emblem of two anchors as a prime target in its broader effort to curb global climate initiatives. Delaying the October vote on the carbon tax marked a clear win for the White House in stalling steps to address rising temperatures.
A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing diplomacy but confirmed the administration’s strong opposition to the IMO proposal. “We will fight hard to protect the American people and their economic interests,” the spokesperson said. The Department of Energy did not respond to inquiries, and the White House declined to comment further.
The cable—referred to as a demarche—will be accompanied by a State Department document outlining the U.S. position against any NZF alternatives that lean on rigid mandates and heavy economic burdens. The plan asserts that proposals should not include a financial penalty, carbon tax, or multilateral fund. It also urges the IMO to avoid setting an arbitrary target that would force a forced compliance path. This appears to reference the IMO’s 2023 strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships, which aims for net-zero by 2050—a goal Energy Secretary Chris Wright has criticized as a “crazy bad idea.”
Earlier this month, at a shipping summit in Greece, Marco Sylvester, the deputy assistant secretary of State for transportation affairs, urged the IMO to drop what he called the Net “Zombie” Framework, according to Lloyd’s List.
The NZF draft, approved by some countries last April, would reward the use of cleaner shipping fuels to eliminate the industry’s climate pollution by 2050. It would establish a carbon-intensity standard that tightens over time, encouraging a switch from fossil fuels to lower-emission options. Ships failing to meet the standard would pay a fee to fund the transition to greener fuels and assist developing nations.
After blocking the October vote, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that if the initiative or any similar measure emerges again from the U.N. system, the U.S. coalition will be ready—and larger than before.
The U.S. position paper, which could still change, also calls on the IMO to remove penalties on liquefied natural gas and to avoid restricting or penalizing fuel types. The NZF would not ban LNG or biofuels outright, but ships running solely on LNG would eventually incur a penalty. The document advocates fostering an energy-abundant environment rather than pursuing a global regime that limits energy choices.
It also argues that regional measures—such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, which already covers carbon pollution from large ships—would need to be terminated or overridden unless the IMO’s measures match or exceed the EU’s strength. Experts note this could be politically tricky for the EU, which has signaled commitment to shipping decarbonization even as the carbon tax was delayed.
Some countries are exploring alternatives. Liberia submitted a proposal to the IMO suggesting no direct carbon fee, with emissions reductions judged by the market uptake of low-carbon marine fuels. This approach would base the fuel transition on market availability rather than on incentives for fuel switching, arguing that the current fuel standard is too restrictive and reduces operators’ flexibility. Liberia’s proposal is co-signed by Argentina and Panama, both major ship registries that supported delaying the NZF.
Analysts highlight that the move seems designed to avoid labeling it a carbon tax while possibly diluting its core aims. Evelyne Williams, a former State Department negotiator, notes that even in this attenuated form, the proposal is unlikely to satisfy an administration predisposed to resist climate-focused initiatives.
Brazil has argued in a separate February submission for keeping the NZF, describing it as sound and realistic and aimed at minimizing impacts on people’s lives. The IMO has spent years working with member states to reach agreement on the NZF.
Last month, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez indicated that the U.S. concerns about a proposed emissions fund could be addressed in a compromise, leaving open the possibility of scrapping the fund.
Industry observers and climate advocates see the NZF as a potential way to avoid a disjointed patchwork of rules that would raise costs and create uncertainty for shipping. Some question how a United Nations body would collect emissions fees, while others warn that regulatory ambiguity could delay the market-driven incentives needed for fleets to invest in decades‑long vessel replacements.
Would you support or oppose a unified international framework for shipping emissions, even if it means higher immediate costs for the industry in exchange for long-term climate benefits? And how far should a country go to protect domestic economic interests when global coordination appears stalled? Share your thoughts below.
