The Trump administration said it will not support a proposed global carbon fee on maritime shipping that is scheduled for a vote next week at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations agency that regulates international shipping.
The measure, known as the Net Zero Fund (NZF), would mark the first instance of a UN body imposing a worldwide fee on carbon emissions from a specific industry.
No taxation without representation.
Being taxed by the UN would be far more offensive than the taxes imposed by Great Britain against the American colonies more than 250 years ago.
Those taxes sparked the American Revolution.
The UN should be defunded, not seeded with new… pic.twitter.com/D8rdVhN5iX
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) October 14, 2025
Officials said the plan would raise global shipping costs by as much as 10 percent and negatively affect U.S. workers, consumers, and energy producers.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
“The United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unfairly burdens the American people,” the administration said in a statement.
“We will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, or shipping companies.”
The NZF proposal is backed by several European nations.
MORE NEWS: Zohran Mamdani’s INSANE Tax Ideas, Kamala Harris’ ABSURD Statement, and College Football Preview
As described by supporters and in summaries cited by the Associated Press, the plan would establish a minimum $100 fee for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ocean-going vessels above specified limits.
The IMO has estimated that the mechanism could raise between $11 billion and $13 billion per year, with proceeds directed to accelerating the development of new low-carbon marine fuels, providing incentives for “low-emission vessels,” and assisting developing countries in modernizing their fleets to meet future standards.
If approved, the fee would take effect in 2027, following a phase-in period and implementation steps overseen by the IMO’s member states.
The proposal is one of several items on the agenda as delegates consider pathways to meet previously adopted sector-wide climate goals for shipping.
Administration officials criticized the initiative as an external imposition of climate policy through a UN forum.
They described the plan as “a neocolonial export of global climate regulations” and said the United States is prepared to respond with economic measures aimed at jurisdictions that vote in favor.
Potential actions under consideration include visa restrictions on certain maritime workers, additional port fees, and sanctions on officials who promote what the statement called “activist-driven” climate policies.
Officials also noted possible limits on vessels registered in nations that support the NZF and the initiation of competition inquiries involving foreign shipping companies.
“The United States will fight to protect its economic interests,” the administration’s statement said, adding that other IMO members “should be on notice.”
U.S. officials said they plan to engage with partners on alternative approaches that, in their view, would reduce emissions without shifting costs onto American consumers or transferring revenues to international funds outside of domestic oversight.
The debate over the NZF is taking place amid broader discussions about the shipping sector’s contribution to global emissions.
Estimates cited by industry groups and UN agencies place maritime shipping at roughly 3 percent of worldwide totals, with projections varying depending on trade growth, fuel use, and technology adoption.
Proponents of a fee-based system argue that a price signal is necessary to accelerate investment in low-carbon fuels such as methanol and ammonia and to bridge cost gaps relative to conventional marine fuels.
Critics contend that a global levy would raise freight costs across supply chains and could disproportionately impact developing economies and consumers in import-reliant markets.
This @IMOHQ “Net Zero” tax would funnel billions into UN bureaucracies while redistributing U.S. wealth to so-called “developing” nations including China.
It’s critical we sound the alarm before the London vote on Thursday.
In this video, I read the @WSJ editorial board… https://t.co/1tJOxJWvgf pic.twitter.com/rZfeZrt110
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) October 15, 2025
Within the IMO, member states regularly negotiate technical standards, efficiency measures, and timelines for adoption.
The NZF proposal would add a financial instrument to existing regulations, paired with a governance framework to allocate revenues for research, deployment, and assistance.
Details under discussion include the precise fee level, emissions thresholds, compliance verification, and how funds would be administered and distributed.
U.S. officials said they would continue to oppose measures they view as harmful to domestic economic interests while working with partners on technology-focused and market-driven solutions.
The administration has not released a separate U.S. alternative to the NZF but indicated it would back approaches that, in its assessment, preserve shipping competitiveness and avoid new costs for American producers and consumers.
The IMO’s member states are expected to take up the NZF item during next week’s session.
If the proposal does not secure sufficient support, delegates could refer it for additional study, amend its terms, or consider revised measures at a future meeting.
If it advances, the organization would begin drafting implementation rules, reporting requirements, and enforcement mechanisms ahead of the planned 2027 start date.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
Surrounded on all sides by liars and thieves.
Carbon is going to be the real money maker of the future as every ”Tom, Dick, and Sally” have their hands out looking to stuff their pockets with ill-gotten gains. Carbon is one of the essential building blocks of nearly ALL life on earth. Plants need it to grow. Plants give us oxygen. We need oxygen to live. Carbon makes up most of the compounds in the structure of our bodies – carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, minerals, etc. all have carbon as part of their chemical structure.
Yet the useless United Nations plan to put a tax on carbon emissions from ships. That tax threatens mankind as a member of the human species. Reducing carbon emissions threatens green plants, threatens our food supply, threatens oxygen levels in the atmosphere, etc. But, hey, the UN needs to scam money from wherever it can get it.
I am depending on President Trump to stand firm in rejecting this latest carbon scam. ”Greening” the earth depends on plant life – it is the only life form that contains chlorophyll – ‘‘Chlorophyll is the green pigment in plants that facilitates photosynthesis, allowing them to convert sunlight into energy. It is also the substance that gives plants their green color and is found in high concentrations in dark-green leafy vegetables like spinach and kale.”
If the UN was honest about ”greening” the earth, it would promote all plant life around the globe and be instrumental in ensuring their growth. It cannot do that by removing the essential element of CARBON from the atmosphere.
Only having a 4 year term could mean all of the work he is doing, that will pay dividends in the future, could be wiped out by the next election. For some reason the powers that be do not want the USA to be successful for all of its citizens. We are like a dining table for the whole world. The left throughout my lifetime have been pretty successful at driving the message that we shouldn’t be the best country we can be because it makes the rest of the world look bad or something.
The time is LONG overdue to get the U.S to HELL OUT of the U.N,, the U.N to hell out of the U.S., and then turn the building into something USEFUL (like a home for homeless Veterans that have been living on the streets)