Congresswoman Harriet Hageman of Wyoming and Congressman Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, introduced legislation protecting the American taxpayer from attempts by international courts to impose climate change reparations on the U.S.
In July, the International Court of Justice, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, issued an advisory opinion contending that international climate change treaties are binding on UN member states, and that breaching these agreements is an “international wrongful act.” According to the ICJ, countries that produce or consume fossil fuels could be subject to orders demanding they cease all “climate change” activities and pay full reparations to harmed nations.
The bill aims to block the use of federal funds to pay a demand for reparations issued by any international bodies or courts for alleged violations of international law.
“The UN’s war on affordable and reliable energy is well known. This is just another effort to push forward with radical policies that have no basis in fact or science. Pursuant to the ICJ theory, every single country in the world would be subject to paying reparations, as every single country consumes fossil fuels. Yet, we know that such an outcome isn’t the UN’s intent. This is just another effort to force America to prop up the economies of failed states and impoverished nations. American citizens are not going to be forced to pay reparations based on vague, speculative claims about so-called climate damage,”Hageman said in a statement. “This bill protects both U.S. sovereignty and Congress’s constitutional authority. It guards against financial risks born of international lawsuits or opinions built on unproven assumptions.”
In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 77/276, requesting that the ICJ issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of states under international law with respect to climate change. The request asked about states’ duties to protect future generations and the legal consequences when states’ actions or failures cause significant harm.
“While President Trump did the right thing in pulling the United States out of the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement, we must continue to protect American sovereignty from international organizations trying to dictate the U.S. economy. This bill ensures that future presidents cannot blow taxpayer dollars abroad on ‘hot air’ demands from global bureaucrats and kangaroo courts,”Tiffany said.
On July 23, 2025, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion. While non-binding, the opinion concluded that international climate change treaties, including those the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations entered the U.S. into, have binding obligations under international law, and violations would be resolved through full reparations.
In the US, many judges have dismissed with prejudice climate lawsuits that seek large settlements from oil companies over alleged climate change. In August, a South Carolina judge rejected a climate lawsuit.
“If these lawsuits were successful, municipalities, companies, and individuals across the country could bring suits for injuries after every weather event,” the judge wrote. “The list of potential plaintiffs is unbounded. Moreover, under Plaintiff’s theory, there is no reason to limit the universe of potential defendants to energy companies alone.”