The United States has doubled down on its opposition to plastic production limits in global treaty talks, according to a diplomatic memo reviewed by the Washington Post, pushing to create a broad loophole to disregard the treaty on national security grounds.
A year after the Trump administration worked with other major oil-producing nations to block strict plastic pollution limits, leading to a failed U.N. conference in Geneva, environmentalists and other observers argue this same group is helping steer negotiations toward a weaker agreement.
Involving delegates from nearly 180 countries, the talks have reached a critical point after four years. Global plastic pollution has ballooned to more than 57 million tons per year, and a coalition of dozens of countries — including most members of the European Union and many from Africa and Latin America — say this waste will become overwhelming unless the world imposes meaningful restrictions soon.
The leaked document, which a foreign diplomat confirmed was circulated this summer to governments involved in negotiations, calls for a “pragmatic” treaty that includes a provision allowing for countries to take any measures they consider necessary to protect national security.
The memo, which emphasizes the need for waste management and private sector investment, argues any agreement must not undermine national security, critical infrastructure, or supply chains. It warns restricting plastics and chemicals could limit access to defense-related products such as weapons materials and protective gear.
The overwhelming majority of plastic is made from chemicals derived from petroleum or other fossil fuels, and the Trump administration has pushed to expand oil and gas drilling and domestic production. Negotiators under Trump have become far more vocal in opposing binding limits on plastic production, compared with a more conciliatory tone under President Joe Biden.
The negotiating position also reflects a broader administration strategy of citing national security concerns to promote fossil fuels, such as when it declared a national energy emergency last year, blocked the development of wind farms, and exempted oil and gas firms from Endangered Species Act requirements in the Gulf of Mexico.
The State Department said in an email that it generally does not comment on “purported” U.S. diplomatic communications.
“The United States seeks to negotiate an agreement that all countries can join and implement as an outcome that will be most effective in reducing plastic pollution,” the department said, adding the treaty should not interfere with military readiness or critical national-security applications.
It said the administration backed “common-sense” measures to reduce plastic pollution while rejecting proposals that would “damage the American economy, drive inflation, and restrict consumer choice.”
Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, Norway’s minister of climate and the environment, said the memo was “in line with what the US has communicated” during recent negotiations.
“We do not share the view that restricting specific plastic items that contribute to plastic pollution would pose a threat to economic growth,” Eriksen said, adding that in countries that have imposed limits on plastic pollution, “new and improved business solutions emerge.”
“The treaty must lead to real changes to tackle plastic pollution; if not, there is no point having it,” Eriksen added.
Barirega Akankwasah, executive director of Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority, defended the U.S.’s right to advance its views: “International law must reflect the needs and aspirations of negotiating countries and international law can only succeed based on national implementation, which in turn is a reflection of national capabilities and circumstances.”
The dispute comes after what experts described as a sharp shift in the U.S. position under the Trump administration. Youngman, a legal and policy specialist at advocacy group Environmental Investigation Agency, said the U.S. under the Biden administration was open to provisions reducing plastic production, even though it did not support a global cap.
But the U.S. has since vocally opposed limits on production and sought to narrow the treaty’s scope, including through new language invoking national security.
Alexandra Harrington, an international legal expert, said the U.S. was not acting alone and had “come back in as a disrupter” in the talks.
Harrington, also the chairperson of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s plastic pollution task force, added the U.S. proposal went far beyond the narrow military exemptions sometimes found in environmental treaties, and appeared aimed more at shielding economic and petrochemical interests than addressing a specific plastics-related defense risk.
“I think for them the national security argument is convenient, it’s useful,” she said.
The memo was circulated in the months before treaty chairperson Julio Cordano published a new “Aid to Negotiations” document earlier this month. The text, intended to steer governments toward a final agreement, has also been criticized by environmental groups and some legal experts for creating a system based on national pledges rather than binding global controls.
Cordano did not respond to a request for comment.
Harrington said the chairperson’s new text was “very clearly” bending toward the agenda of countries seeking a less ambitious treaty, like the U.S.
She pointed to the removal of trade provisions that would have regulated the cross-border movement of plastics, from polymers and products sold abroad to plastic waste shipped for disposal or recycling. Harrington said trade rules are a standard feature of major pollution treaties.
Stewart Harris, managing director for global affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said the administration’s position is largely aligned with the plastic industry’s.
Harris, whose trade group represents plastics manufacturers, said hard limits on plastic production will raise product costs for lower income people globally without significantly reducing plastic waste. Roughly 2.7 billion people globally do not have access to proper collection for their plastic waste and addressing that and recycling would go further to reducing pollution, he said.
ACC is lobbying for individual countries to set their own action plans for tackling plastic pollution, such as setting national rather than global targets for how much recycled content plastic should contain.
Harris said ACC has not taken a position on the national security exemption, but that such provisions were common in global environmental agreements.
“That tells me that the United States is very serious about negotiating an agreement it can join,” he said. “They wouldn’t be even considering those details if it was not serious about joining.”
Even if negotiators reach a deal, the United States would only join the treaty if the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority vote, a difficult bar to clear in an extremely polarized Congress.
While formal talks will resume next spring, informal negotiations resumed in late June, nearly a year after governments failed to produce a final agreement amid disputes over whether the treaty should include limits on plastic production and binding restrictions on chemicals. Many countries rejected the then-chairperson’s draft as too weak to serve as the basis for a deal.
Youngman said the new document weakens last year’s text further by removing proposed reporting requirements on how much plastic countries produce and consume, and by replacing stronger legal terms such as “shall” with weaker language such as “should.” Even its most ambitious options, she said, would fall short of the mandate to end plastic pollution.
“We didn’t think it was possible,” she said, “but we keep on digging ourselves even lower.”
Heads of delegations are due to meet in Bangkok at the end of September, where governments are expected to discuss “bridging proposals,” compromise language intended to address the treaty’s most contentious issues.
