• On his first day in office, Donald Trump introduced multiple executive orders on energy and the environment.
• Many of these aim to re-establish the supremacy of fossil fuels over renewable energy.
• Trump's choices contain, however, several paradoxes: they risk harming the planet, but also American citizens.

On 20 January 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term as President of the United States of America. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, and can also count on a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents on the Supreme Court. The Trump administration issued a series of presidential orders, including the announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, even though more than 5,000 state and local leaders – representing 63 per cent of the population and 74 per cent of gross domestic product – have nonetheless pledged to uphold the treaty's objectives, along with the governors of 24 states and territories. Among other measures, the newly installed administration declared a "energy emergency", eliminated incentives for electric vehicles and abolished the Green New Deal. In addition, numerous executive orders from the Biden era were revoked, including the one for the "restoration of science to tackle the climate crisis". It remains, however, uncertain how many of these actions will survive agency review, hold up in the courts or have any concrete impact. Not to mention that many of these acts are set to cause more harm than good or, at the very least, create paradoxes worth reflecting on. Let us examine them together.

Declaring an energy emergency, but to stimulate fossil fuels

Trump's stated intentions coincide with a critical moment for the climate: devastating wildfires, fuelled by climate change, are ravaging California, following the hottest year ever recorded globally, during which two major hurricanes – Helene and Milton – caused significant damage across the southeastern United States.

In this context, Trump and congressional Republicans have adopted the language of "energy dominance", announcing a "national energy emergency" (here is the text of the executive order), even though the United States is already producing more oil now than any other country at any other point in history (a record achieved under the Biden administration, it should be noted). Oil companies argue that they are already drilling as much as possible while global demand for oil continues to decline: in China, for example, according to the financial newspaper Financial Times, a global leader in the energy transition, oil has already reached its peak.

Trump aims to streamline the permitting process for fossil fuel production, with particular focus on Alaska. However, a recent tender for new drilling contracts received no bids. According to many experts, it therefore remains to be seen whether drilling will be genuinely cost-effective for energy companies, unless Trump chooses to subsidise them (something that has not been announced at this stage). In the final weeks of his presidency, Biden introduced a ban on future offshore drilling for oil and gas along much of the United States' coastal waters. From his very first day in office, Trump has worked to revoke the protection of over 250 million hectares of ocean coastline from drilling, but these efforts may face obstacles, as they are likely to be challenged in court, given that the law introduced by Biden requires Congressional action for such decisions.

No to wind, yes to gas

Trump is also calling to put an end to leasing contracts for wind energy, which currently powers more than 10 per cent of the national electricity grid. A heavy blow for renewables, when one considers that solar and wind combined surpassed coal in the United States in 2024, thanks in part to the extensive tax credits implemented by the Biden administration. The United States now ranks third in the world for solar panel production: a position it risks losing at Trump's hands. As for wind, Biden approved 11 utility-scale offshore wind projects during his term, and many of these are currently under construction. According to the New York Times, in 2023 wind farms accounted for 22 per cent of electricity generated in Texas and 59 per cent of that produced in Iowa – significant sources of electricity in major states.

In contrast, Trump aims to revive liquefied natural gas (LNG), strengthening the country's role as an exporter. Yet the reality points in another direction: a new analysis by Zero Carbon Analytics shows that the EU does not need new American LNG to replace Russian gas. In fact, EU gas demand is set to fall by 29 per cent compared to 2024 levels by 2030, and by 67 per cent by 2040. Furthermore, a study by the US Department of Energy states that increased LNG exports would cause energy costs for the average household to rise by over 100 dollars by 2050. It should be noted that, regardless of Trump's reversal of the ban, the United States' LNG export capacity was already set to double between 2024 and 2028, thanks to projects already under construction.

Why Trump's decisions risk putting his own voters in a difficult position

Trump's announcements are full of paradoxes. Multiple orders aim to slow or revisit the massive climate spending approved during the Biden administration, 75 per cent of which went to federal districts led by Republicans.

More broadly, the resources of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), through which Biden deployed 74 billion dollars to fund battery and electric vehicle manufacturers, solar and wind energy producers and more, have been almost entirely allocated. There are still 20 billion dollars to be disbursed (although the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in a recent press release, stated that 69 billion dollars have already been allocated, representing 93 per cent of total resources).

Certainly, Trump's intention to dismantle the largest climate bill in the world will deliver a sharp blow to a sector that has so far added more than 775,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector: of these, more than 400,000 are directly tied to clean technologies, according to data gathered by the organisation Climate Power. Furthermore, the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University found that the United States' withdrawal from clean energy could offer up to 80 billion dollars in new supply chain opportunities to countries outside the United States, while costing American companies up to 50 billion dollars in lost export revenues. In short, choices that seem to run counter to the idea of making America "great again".

Now, how can one keep track of what will unfold over the coming months and years, without falling victim to online disinformation? On this front, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University will monitor every step taken by the Trump-Vance administration to reduce or entirely eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures. The Sabin Center, in collaboration with the Environmental Defense Fund, will also track reductions to the IRA.

Despite the expected government disengagement on climate action and energy, many cities, states and businesses across the United States have declared that they will continue to act. A study published by the School of Public Policy shows that, even without federal support, continued and ambitious action by non-federal actors could enable an emissions reduction of more than 48 per cent by 2035. Could it be in this final figure that the true face of the United States truly lies?