Deregulation and Retreat from Scientific Consensus and Legal Norms
Ahmad Bakhshayeshi Ardestani, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, stated: “The Trump administration’s deregulation policies, particularly the decision to revoke the 2009 scientific finding, represent a turning point in undermining U.S. environmental efforts. This finding, resulting from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, identified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as a threat to public health and the environment, forming the legal basis for greenhouse gas emission reduction standards from vehicles and power plants.” Thus, the international affairs expert considers this move an “explicit denial of scientific consensus,” which not only nullifies decades of environmental achievements but also damages global trust in U.S. environmental commitments.
According to him, “Revoking this scientific finding was done to bolster fossil fuel industries and reduce restrictions on producers, but this approach imposes heavy costs both on the U.S. itself and the global community.” Ardestani argues that “Trump’s intended deregulation, by encouraging greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbates global warming, whose effects transcend U.S. borders and particularly impact developing countries. This policy prioritizes short-term economic interests over public health and global sustainability, fueling climate instability.”

Threat to International Security from the Copenhagen School Perspective
Ardestani also criticizes Trump’s perspective from the angle of international security, emphasizing that “U.S. government deregulation is not merely an environmental issue or crisis, but a threat to international security.” Citing the views of Barry Buzan and the Copenhagen School, he notes that “international security is no longer confined to military and arms issues but also encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Thus, global warming, by creating crises such as climate migration, water and food shortages, and increased regional conflicts, has become one of the greatest threats to global security.”
Considering this point, Ardestani says: “Trump’s policies, including withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and expanded use of fossil fuels, intensify these threats.” The international security expert believes that “this approach, by weakening international cooperation, diminishes countries’ ability to manage climate crises collectively. For example, increased greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. could intensify climate phenomena such as storms and droughts, whose effects will manifest as humanitarian crises in vulnerable regions like West Asia and Africa.” According to him, “These policies are not only irresponsible but directly endanger global security.”

Economic and Social Consequences of Deregulation
Ardestani continues his analysis by stating: “The Trump administration claims that environmental deregulation benefits the U.S. economy and creates freedom for consumers and industries.” However, the senior international analyst challenges this argument, believing that “the long-term costs of these policies far outweigh their short-term benefits. For instance, the transportation sector, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., has been affected by reduced emission standards. This may lower production costs in the short term, but in the long term, by increasing damages from climate disasters such as floods and storms, it will strain the U.S. and global economy.”
Furthermore, deregulation could lead to increased social inequalities. Bakhshayeshi Ardestani points out in this context that “low-income and minority communities, who often live in more vulnerable areas, will bear the brunt of the negative impacts of climate change. This could lead to heightened social tensions and even internal conflicts in various countries.” He clarifies: “Environmental policies must be designed with social justice in mind, whereas the Trump administration’s approach has ignored this principle and exacerbated inequalities.”

Civil Resistance and Challenges Facing Trump
This expert further states: “In the face of the Trump administration’s deregulation policies, the need for environmental diplomacy is felt more than ever, and there is potential for civil, political, and media resistance in the U.S. and Europe against Trump’s policy.” In this regard, Bakhshayeshi Ardestani suggests that “the U.S. government’s actions may provoke reactions from civil and social movements of environmental advocates and Green parties in the U.S. and even Europe, and they could increase pressure on the Trump administration by launching awareness campaigns and lobbying efforts. On the other hand, media outlets will likely mobilize public opinion by covering climate consequences, and social networks through rapid information dissemination.”
According to this analyst, “Legal actions by states such as California and New York may create challenges for Trump. Globally, environmental diplomacy through cooperation with the European Union could intensify diplomatic pressure on the U.S. However, Ardestani believes that “the success of this resistance depends on broad coalitions and the use of legal and diplomatic tools; otherwise, climate crises and global instability will intensify.”