What specific economic studies did the Trump administration reference about job losses from staying in the Paris Agreement?

1. The administration’s explicit citation: NERA / “2.7 million” headline number

The Trump White House’s June 1, 2017 withdrawal statement names “the National Economic Research Associates” (NERA) and repeats the figure “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,” and the number also appears in the public transcript of Trump’s announcement ^{[1] [2]}. News organizations traced the administration’s talking point directly to NERA’s report and to the White House press materials that quoted it ^{[3] [2]}.

2. What the NERA study actually contained — multiple scenarios, not one definitive forecast

Reporting on the NERA work emphasized that the firm modeled several scenarios with widely varying outcomes; the administration highlighted the worst-case scenario. CNN summarized that NERA’s “best‑case” scenario estimated about 12,000 manufacturing jobs lost by 2025 and 2.3 million jobs overall, while the scenario Trump cited represented the most damaging outcome — 440,000 manufacturing jobs and 2.7 million jobs overall — rather than a single consensus projection ^[3]. The Independent also reported that Trump’s claim relied on picking the largest negative scenario from NERA’s range ^[5].

3. Pushback from economists and alternative analyses

Prominent economists and outlets argued NERA’s estimate overstated net job losses because it did not fully account for job creation in low‑carbon sectors. PBS’s coverage noted mainstream business leaders and many economists said withdrawing would have “no meaningful employment impacts,” and that coal job losses were driven by productivity gains and cheap natural gas rather than Paris membership ^[4]. CNN and The Independent cited studies and economists (including Hafstead’s analysis mentioned in coverage) finding that job losses in fossil sectors would be balanced by gains in renewables and related industries ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Political framing and selective use of results

Multiple reports flagged how the administration cherry‑picked the worst NERA scenario to create a vivid, politically useful headline. CNN and The Independent describe Trump as having “cited the worst outlook” from NERA’s range and failing to weigh potential clean‑energy job gains in the public justification for withdrawal ^{[3] [5]}. The White House’s statement framed Paris as “onerous energy restrictions” and an economic burden, using the NERA number to underline that message ^[1].

5. Broader reporting on impacts and limits of the debate

Coverage from outlets like PBS and The New York Times emphasized that employment impacts from international agreements are hard to isolate: domestic policy changes, market trends (e.g., natural gas prices, technology), and state/local initiatives matter significantly. PBS noted that withdrawing from Paris would not necessarily reverse long‑term structural employment trends that already reduced coal jobs ^[4]. The New York Times documented Trump’s broader framing of Paris as “job‑killing” but also explained that U.S. policy choices — not just Paris membership — determine emissions and economic outcomes ^[6].

6. What available sources do not mention

Available sources in this set do not provide NERA’s full methodology text, the exact scenarios and assumptions tabulated in the NERA report, or NERA’s own public defense or clarification of which scenario it considered most likely. They also do not supply a comprehensive, peer‑reviewed consensus estimate of net U.S. job effects from Paris membership (not found in current reporting).

7. Bottom line for readers

The Trump administration relied on a single firm’s modeling — and, crucially, the most pessimistic scenario within that modeling — to claim 2.7 million U.S. job losses by 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Independent reporting and economists challenged that portrayal, pointing out alternative analyses that show much smaller net impacts or potential job gains from low‑carbon investment, and cautioned that broader market and policy dynamics drive employment in energy sectors ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Readers should treat the 2.7 million figure as a headline sourced to one scenario in NERA’s work and weigh it against other studies and the structural drivers of energy‑sector employment described in the reporting ^{[3] [4]}.