Donald Trump has moved quickly to dismantle federal climate policy, from pollution rules to research programs, and the scale of the shift has stunned many inside and outside government. The central question now is not whether his agenda is disruptive, but how much of this shock to US climate action will endure once the political winds change again. I see three overlapping tests emerging: what can be reversed on paper, what damage to institutions and markets is already locked in, and where outside forces are quietly limiting the reach of Washington’s rollback.
The scale of the rollback: rules, research, and information
The first measure of durability is simply how far the administration has gone in tearing up the previous climate framework. By one count, The Sabin Center’s Climate Backtracker shows that, as of January 14, 2026, the Trump administration has taken nearly 300 actions targeting climate and clean energy, a figure that captures everything from formal rulemakings to quieter procedural moves. One emblematic example is the decision by the EPA to delay until January 2027 a requirement for oil and gas operators to reduce methane pollution, a step that, according to a poll-based tracker, will allow millions of tons of additional emissions into the atmosphere. These kinds of regulatory changes are designed to slow the transition away from fossil fuels and signal to industry that enforcement pressure is easing.
The assault has not stopped at regulations. Federal science itself has been a target, with Halted research and shrunken labs across the country as climate and energy programs lose funding or staff. More than 7,800 grants from the NIH and US National Science Foundation (NSF) were disrupted, according to one analysis, interrupting long term projects that underpin everything from climate modeling to public health. At the same time, The Trump administration removed all five previous National Climate Assessments from federal websites in June and deleted the website of the body that publishes the reports, forcing outside groups to scramble to archive the lost information. When data, research capacity, and regulatory tools are all hit at once, rebuilding becomes more than a matter of signing a new executive order.
Where Trump’s changes can be reversed – and where they cannot
On paper, many of Trump’s climate moves look temporary, because a future president can, in theory, restore stricter standards and restart programs. Analysts have noted that, However disruptive they appear, a large share of the regulatory rollbacks can be reversed by a future president using the same legal tools that Trump is now exploiting, a point underscored in recent However detailed assessments. The Department of Energy is already a case study in this churn: despite political pressure, a contested DOE report on climate and energy has drawn intense criticism, and in November the EPA announced a proposal to tighten certain pollution rules again, with Next Steps that could be finalized in 2026 even as the administration questions other climate policies. Even Tesla, which has often benefited from federal incentives, has opposed efforts to weaken some efficiency standards, illustrating that industry is not uniformly aligned behind deregulation.
Yet reversibility on paper does not mean no lasting damage in practice. Some of Trump’s actions have already led companies to walk away from new clean energy projects, particularly in offshore wind, where uncertainty over leasing and permitting has chilled investment, as highlighted in a separate Trump-focused analysis. When firms cancel projects or close specialized factories, the expertise and supply chains that supported them can take years to rebuild, if they return at all. The same is true for research: once labs are dismantled and early career scientists leave the field because NIH and NSF grants have dried up, no future budget can fully recover the lost time. The administration’s track of shutting down climate change programs and policies and covering up or outright lying about the science, described by advocates as unprecedented damage, suggests that some scars will remain even if the formal rules are later restored.
Markets and “positive tipping points” pushing the other way
At the same time, Trump’s effort to drag US climate policy backward is colliding with powerful economic and technological trends that are moving in the opposite direction. In the power sector, utilities are increasingly turning to solar, wind, and battery storage because they are cheaper than new coal or gas plants in many regions, regardless of federal policy. Analysts describe Positive tipping points that are creating runaway change in sectors like electric vehicles, where falling battery costs and consumer demand are accelerating adoption even as Washington tries to tilt the playing field back toward internal combustion. These dynamics limit how far any administration can turn back the clock, because once technologies cross key cost thresholds, they tend to keep spreading.
That does not mean federal policy is irrelevant. President Donald Trump and Congress took several steps to eliminate federal support for clean vehicles, including scrapping the $7,500 consumer tax credit for many electric models, while advancing a replacement that favors hybrids and conventional vehicles, according to a detailed look at the President Donald Trump record. Those choices slow the pace of change and shape which companies thrive. Yet even here, state policies and corporate strategies are cushioning the blow. One year into the Trump administration, a review of where climate action continued found that States, businesses, and other nations were pressing on with their own targets, from California’s zero emission vehicle mandates to corporate renewable power purchase agreements. Markets are not a substitute for federal leadership, but they are making it harder for Washington to fully derail the clean energy transition.
Lawfare, foreign policy, and the global signal
Another test of how enduring Trump’s climate shock will be lies in the courts and in foreign capitals. Climate policy and the legal system are now tightly intertwined, with Litigation emerging as a central arena in 2026. Democratic attorneys general and environmental groups are challenging major rollbacks, from weakened vehicle standards to efforts to undermine the EPA’s core finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. Environmentalists want EPA to withdraw its plans to repeal the so called endangerment finding after the Trump team disclosed new records, and have released a trove of Environmentalists emails to bolster their case that the rollback is politically, not scientifically, driven. Court rulings on these fights will shape not just this administration, but the legal boundaries for future presidents as well.
Abroad, Trump’s climate stance is feeding a broader perception of US retreat. A running Expand Collaps review of foreign policy decisions notes that, in 2025, Trump’s executive order pausing all foreign assistance created chaos and was seen as an abdication of US leadership, including on climate finance. When Washington pulls back from funding clean energy and resilience projects overseas, other powers, from the European Union to China, step in to fill the gap, potentially reshaping alliances and technology standards for years. That erosion of trust is harder to repair than a single regulation, because partners begin to doubt that any US climate pledge will survive the next election cycle. The damage to American credibility, in other words, could be one of the most durable legacies of this period.
Competing narratives: coal revival versus climate reality
Inside the administration, officials present a very different story, one in which Trump is restoring balance after what they describe as regulatory overreach. An Energy Department summary titled “ONE YEAR IN: Promises Made, Promises Kept” argues that, Thanks to President Trump, wages for coal workers are up and coal plants across the country are reversing plans to shut down, and touts the role of the Secretary of Energy on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as Vice Chair, according to the department’s own Thanks account. Supporters frame this as a necessary correction that protects jobs and energy security, and they point to short term upticks in coal production or plant life extensions as proof that the strategy is working. In this narrative, climate regulations are cast as a threat to communities rather than a shield against long term risk.
More from Morning Overview