The United States is seeking to limit the ambition of the proposed global treaty to end plastic pollution, according to a leaked diplomatic memo reviewed by The Washington Post. The document reveals that the Trump administration is opposing global limits on plastic production and advocating a broad national security exemption that could allow countries to disregard treaty provisions they consider necessary to protect national security.

The position comes as negotiations involving almost 180 countries enter a critical phase. Global plastic pollution is estimated at more than 57 million tonnes a year, while a large coalition of countries, including most European Union members and nations across Africa and Latin America, argues that stronger international controls are needed to prevent the problem from escalating.

The U.S. proposal instead emphasises improved waste management, recycling and private-sector investment. It argues that restrictions on plastics and chemicals could affect critical supply chains and defence-related products such as protective equipment and weapons components. The U.S. State Department has defended the position as seeking a treaty that can be broadly implemented, while opposing measures it says could damage the American economy, increase inflation or restrict consumer choice.

Critics argue that the proposed national security provision is considerably broader than the narrowly defined military exemptions normally found in environmental agreements. They contend that it could effectively provide an avenue for countries to avoid meaningful treaty obligations and could protect petrochemical and economic interests rather than addressing specific defence requirements.

The dispute also reflects a wider divide over how the treaty should operate. Industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, support nationally determined action plans rather than globally mandated production or recycled-content targets. They argue that inadequate waste collection—particularly in developing countries—is a more immediate driver of plastic pollution and should be prioritised.

Environmental and legal experts, however, are concerned that the latest negotiating text is moving away from binding international obligations. Proposed reporting requirements on plastic production and consumption have reportedly been removed, while stronger terms such as “shall” have been replaced with “should”. Trade provisions covering the movement of plastics and plastic waste have also been dropped.

Formal negotiations are expected to resume next year, with heads of delegation due to meet in Bangkok in September to consider compromise proposals. The outcome will be closely watched by the global plastics industry as governments debate whether the treaty should focus primarily on waste management and circularity, or impose upstream controls on plastic production, chemicals and products.

For the Australian PVC industry, the negotiations reinforce the importance of advocating for a science-based, lifecycle approach to plastics policy that recognises the role of product performance, resource efficiency, recycling and responsible chemical management alongside measures to reduce plastic pollution.