Expressing strong disapproval of the President's announcement to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.
Summary
H. Res. 68 is a House resolution expressing strong disapproval of the President’s announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The resolution lays out a series of findings arguing that climate change is already causing severe harms in the United States, including heat-related illness and deaths, drought, wildfires, storm damage, and broader economic and security risks. It also emphasizes that the Paris Agreement is intended to limit global temperature rise and that U.S. participation is important to international climate cooperation.
The resolution urges the President to reverse the withdrawal decision, commends states, local governments, businesses, universities, investors, and individuals supporting the agreement, and calls on Congress to prioritize U.S. global leadership on climate change. It frames continued participation as consistent with U.S. economic, security, and diplomatic interests, and highlights clean energy investment, job creation, and emissions reductions as benefits of remaining in the agreement.
Impact
This resolution would not itself change statutory law or impose regulatory requirements; instead, it expresses the sense of the House and seeks to influence executive branch policy. Its practical impact is political and symbolic, reaffirming support for U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement and for federal climate action. The bill references major climate-related laws and programs such as the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act as part of the broader policy context, but it does not amend those laws or create new legal obligations.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment in the bill is strongly supportive of the Paris Agreement and strongly opposed to withdrawal from it. The resolution’s sponsors and signers present climate action as a matter of public health, economic competitiveness, national security, and international leadership. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so the available context shows only the bill’s affirmative, pro-climate framing and the broad coalition of Democratic sponsors listed on introduction.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether the United States should remain in the Paris Agreement. Supporters argue that withdrawal would weaken U.S. climate leadership, harm clean energy investment and jobs, and undermine efforts to reduce emissions and address climate-related risks. The resolution also suggests that withdrawal would isolate the United States internationally and cede advantage to competitors such as China. Because no committee transcript or vote history is available, there is no recorded opposing argument in the provided materials, but the resolution clearly anticipates disagreement over the President’s decision and over the federal government’s role in climate policy.
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States, States, cities, Tribal nations, businesses, institutions of higher education, and other institutions in the United States should work toward achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Designation and election of presidential electors provided, and Minnesota withdrawn from the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that public servants should be commended for their dedication and continued service to the United States, including their commitment to defending the Constitution and delivering essential services to United States citizens, and in doing so, supporting the United States economy, during Public Service Recognition Week and throughout the year.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Ghislaine Maxwell should not receive a pardon, commutation, or other form of clemency from the President of the United States.
Expressing the sense of Congress that Trump administration tariffs on Mexico and Canada are in violation of the United States of America-Mexico-Canada Agreement.