On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders intended to reverse Biden-era energy policies and bolster U.S. fossil fuel production. His stated objectives: maximize oil and gas output, reduce regulations on traditional energy sources, and promote U.S. energy supremacy. However, a closer examination of these actions reveals deep contradictions that threaten to weaken the country’s energy security rather than strengthen it. While Trump’s rhetoric emphasizes economic benefits, his policies could lead to job losses, increased energy costs, and reduced competitiveness in global energy markets.
Among Trump’s key directives was the expansion of oil and gas drilling on federal lands and the rollback of offshore wind energy projects. He also eliminated regulations that supported the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), a move designed to protect fossil fuel demand. I had the privilege of discussing these measures with Professor Michael Gerrard, a leading environmental law expert at Columbia Law School who specializes in climate change law, energy regulation, and environmental litigation. Professor Gerrard pointed out that, despite Trump’s claims in support of oil and natural gas expansion, there has been a striking lack of new project announcements. Why? As Gerrard put it “The amount of oil and gas drilling that takes place is largely a function of the price. And if the price of oil and gas goes down, as Trump has been promising, it’s less economical to drill.” In other words, lower prices reduce profit margins for energy companies, making new drilling projects financially unviable. The oil and gas industry operates on market-driven incentives, meaning that without strong price signals or government subsidies, companies are unlikely to invest in costly extraction projects. As a result, despite political rhetoric supporting expanded fossil fuel production, economic realities could limit large-scale drilling efforts.
Moreover, Trump’s executive orders aimed at expanding fossil fuel production are counterproductive and could ultimately harm the U.S. energy landscape. Let’s take a deeper look:
- A Reduction in Net Energy Supply: Trump’s stance against wind and solar development ignores the fact that these are now among the cheapest energy sources. Blocking offshore wind projects eliminates thousands of megawatts of potential energy and fails to generate equivalent new fossil fuel capacity.
- Job Losses in the Energy Sector: The renewable energy industry employs hundreds of thousands of Americans. The American Clean Power Association, for instance, estimates that wind and solar projects employ over 500,000 people. Canceling these initiatives will eliminate jobs without creating equivalent opportunities in fossil fuel extraction.
- No Increase in Fossil Fuel Output: Despite lifting restrictions, Trump has yet to announce major new drilling projects. As Gerrard noted: “Since that swarm of executive orders we saw on Inauguration Day, there haven’t been announcements of new oil or gas drilling, coal mining, pipeline construction, or any of the other things that would actually indicate there’s going to be more fossil fuel production.”
- Higher Energy Costs for Consumers: The administration’s planned tariffs on energy imports from Canada and Mexico would drive up costs for U.S. consumers. "The energy we import from Mexico and Canada will be more expensive. And it’s the buyers, not the sellers, who pay for it," Gerrard explained. These tariffs would disrupt supply chains, making gasoline and electricity more costly. On the flipside, Trump is also moving against two of the lowest-cost sources of energy–wind and solar–further driving up prices for consumers.
The irony of all of this cannot be overlooked: Trump’s activities will hit red states the hardest, likely causing widespread economic pain. Despite his rhetoric against clean energy investment, the reality is that approximately 80% of the clean energy manufacturing investments under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has flowed into Republican districts. The effects of cancelling these investments–totaling $165.8 billion since 2022–are already evident in states like Montana, where a biofuel plant lost a $782 million payment, and Georgia, where $1 billion for modernizing the power grid is now on hold. The suspension or cancellation of these initiatives is likely to lead to thousands of layoffs, leaving farmers, industrial workers, and rural communities in these red states vulnerable. The question thus remains: will Republican lawmakers in affected districts push back? We can only hope that those who represent these areas will find a way to block efforts to repeal the IRA and preserve these crucial investments in their communities. As it stands, the Republicans’ margin in the House is so slim that even three or four defectors can block a bill.
On the international stage, Trump’s tariffs and regulatory rollbacks could inadvertently give China a significant strategic advantage. By raising the cost of raw materials and manufacturing in the U.S., these policies make Chinese clean energy technologies—like solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines—more attractive to international buyers. As Professor Gerrard stated: “Many of Trump’s actions are a real gift to China. They’re driving up U.S. production costs and making U.S. manufacturers even less competitive globally.” At a time when global markets are shifting toward renewables, the U.S. risks losing its leadership position in the clean energy sector.
Trump’s energy executive orders illustrate a fundamental contradiction. Though they claim to bolster U.S. energy independence, they instead make energy more expensive, reduce supply diversity, and weaken America’s competitive standing. These policies benefit neither the average consumer nor the long-term stability of the U.S. energy grid. The broader implications for economic stability, global market influence, and climate progress remain profound. Meanwhile, a polarized media landscape continues to shape the public’s perception of these measures by perpetuating misleading narratives that frame Trump’s policies in a positive light, obscuring these contradictions from Trump’s constituents. In the long run, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality will allow Trump’s energy policies to put the U.S. at risk of lagging behind in the global clean energy transition, prioritizing short-term political gains over sustainable economic growth and genuine energy security.