Decoding Trump’s climate priorities — or lack thereof

As the reality of a second Trump term sets in, and at the same time as annual global climate negotiations are underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, many are questioning the implications of a Trump 2.0 presidency for energy and the climate. The answer, I believe, requires a bit of guesswork about his priorities — as well as an understanding of the extent of his powers in reversing the energy transition.

Donald Trump ran a campaign that was largely void of policy priorities, which makes it somewhat difficult to predict his climate and energy plans once back in the White House. But he did campaign on slogans, while also dropping views on various energy and climate topics in his narrative “weave” during rallies and other speaking events, including two on energy priorities: 1) “drill, baby, drill” and 2) prohibit offshore wind projects.

The slogan “drill, baby, drill” is recycled from a campaign from nearly two decades ago, and later adopted by vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The underlying priority is to expand oil and gas extraction. To encourage this expansion, President Trump will prioritize executive orders — likely in his first few days in office — that open more federal lands to oil and gas leasing and reduce the permitting and other regulatory requirements associated with drilling and extraction operations.

An important question, however, is what will be the efficacy of such developments? U.S. oil and gas production is already at an all-time high. And although expanding supply can presumably reduce costs for consumers, the market conditions are complex and make the basic Economics 101 story far more complicated.

Per capita demand for oil in the U.S. has been on a general decline since the early 2000s, and production is already expected to run a surplus next year. The energy transition is leading consumers toward oil alternatives, like transport electrification, and infrastructure constraints are suffocating some natural gas markets in the U.S., like those in Pennsylvania. And imposing tariffs, another stated policy priority of the incoming president, will likely drive down global demand for U.S. oil and gas.

Trump’s detestation of offshore wind is an enigma, curiously having something to do with a mission to protect birds and whales — while avoiding sharks, of course — skepticism about the wind’s ability to blow, and bacon production. Here, too, Trump will likely introduce an executive order early in his term that seeks to slow or delay the permitting process for offshore wind projects. His purview provides him little ability, however, to prevent those projects that have already been built or approved.

Trump has also given some hints of two other priorities, though through less catchy slogans.

First, Trump is committed to peeling back U.S. climate commitments. To understand what this might mean in terms of policy priorities, we can look to his first presidency for clues. Through an administrative presidency, Trump primarily used executive orders to repeal, reverse, or dismantle the policies of his predecessors, with an approach less focused on established policy objectives and instead one aimed directly at a “search and destroy” mission.

In his next term, one can surmise that he will do the same, specifically through executive orders focused on reversing landmark climate efforts of the Biden administration, such as removing greenhouse gas emissions restrictions, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, ending the use of the social cost of carbon in regulatory decisions, eliminating the Justice40 initiative, and reducing regulatory oversight over fossil fuel energy operations and its waste management.

Yet, and similar to his first term, these actions will likely be temporary and not withstand any future changes in administration. They are likely to be stalled or dismissed through litigation, or unable to fundamentally change energy transition market developments.

Second, Trump has suggested a desire to “terminate” green spending, which presumably means dismantling the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and possibly also the bipartisan infrastructure law and the CHIPS and Science Act. Here, the jury is out about what exactly Trump will do, and perhaps more immediately, what those trusted advisers around him will encourage him to do.

The IRA has already invested over $90 billion in manufacturing and clean energy projects across the country, with approximately 70% of investments and 80% of jobs funneling to Republican congressional districts. After hinting at his desire to target the IRA while on the campaign trail, 18 Republican members of Congress wrote a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson to encourage him to preserve the IRA due to the significant investment opportunities IRA programs were already producing in their districts.

To tamper with the IRA programs now, right as many IRA investments are reaching maturity, could produce political backlash, as well as the added hurdle of congressional action. Trump may, however, still seek to claw back funds that have not yet been committed while simultaneously gutting the agencies — and in some cases specific offices, such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program — that administer the IRA programs.

This latter action of stripping the agencies of power may, in fact, be the greatest source of impact of Trump’s energy and climate agenda.

Sanya Carley is the Mark Alan Hughes Faculty Director of the Kleinman Center and Presidential Distinguished Professor of Energy Policy and City Planning at the Stuart Weitzman School of Design.