The Trump administration has spent its first year in office systematically dismantling federal support for renewable energy, pausing offshore wind projects, terminating billions in clean energy funding, and proposing to rescind the scientific finding that underpins vehicle emissions rules. Taken together, these actions amount to the most aggressive federal retreat from green energy policy in decades, raising a pointed question: will the short-term bet on fossil fuels cost the United States its competitive edge in a global energy market that is rapidly shifting toward cheaper, cleaner alternatives?
Offshore Wind Frozen, Leasing Pipeline Gutted
The Department of the Interior has moved beyond isolated project delays into what amounts to a programmatic shutdown of the federal offshore wind pipeline. The agency launched an overhaul of leasing rules that bundles multiple discrete actions, including approval pauses and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management reviews, into a single agenda framed around “American energy security.” That language echoes a January 2025 White House executive order declaring that America’s abundance of energy and natural resources should power the nation’s economy, with fossil fuels treated as the priority. Interior officials argue that slowing offshore wind will protect military operations and reduce costs for ratepayers, but the move also signals to investors that federal backing for large-scale clean energy infrastructure is no longer reliable.
The practical consequences are stark. The administration paused offshore wind leases for multiple projects already under construction, citing national security and radar interference concerns. BOEM then went further, issuing a direct final rule that rescinded the requirement for a five-year offshore renewable lease sale schedule. Without that schedule, the forward pipeline for new offshore wind development has no federal framework, leaving developers and coastal states without a roadmap for projects that take years to plan and finance. States that had banked on offshore wind to meet climate targets and support manufacturing jobs now face a planning vacuum, while rival markets in Europe and Asia continue to auction new areas and lock in long-term supply chains.
Dismantling the Regulatory Foundation for Emissions Rules
The policy retreat extends well beyond wind. The EPA released a proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, the Obama-era determination that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare. That finding has served as the legal basis for every federal vehicle emissions standard since, including rules that encouraged automakers to invest heavily in electric vehicles. The Trump EPA articulated a legal and economic rationale for the rollback, arguing that the costs of climate regulation outweigh the benefits and that the finding distorts EV-related policies. In effect, the agency is asking courts to accept that the scientific record underpinning the original finding is either insufficient or misapplied, a stance that breaks sharply with the position EPA has defended for more than a decade.
The proposed rule specifically targets motor vehicle standards under Section 202 and would remove related greenhouse gas rules, with a public comment period and hearings now underway. But the legal path is far from clear. A Congressional Research Service brief has noted that the EPA has not previously identified a basis for revising or rescinding the finding, and recent Supreme Court doctrine on agency deference could complicate judicial review. If courts block the rescission, the administration will have spent political capital and created regulatory uncertainty for automakers without achieving the deregulatory outcome it promised. If the rescission holds, the United States would become the only major auto market without binding federal emissions standards for new vehicles, a position that could isolate American manufacturers from export markets that demand cleaner fleets and undermine long-term investments in cleaner technologies.
Federal Funding Cuts Collide with Falling Costs
The administration has paired its regulatory rollbacks with direct spending cuts. U.S. Secretary of Energy Wright announced the termination of 24 clean energy projects, generating over $3 billion in what the department called taxpayer savings by cutting taxpayer-funded financial assistance. The canceled projects span technologies that were designed to accelerate the energy transition, from grid-scale storage to advanced manufacturing. Industry groups warn that the abrupt cancellations strand private capital, disrupt hiring, and send a chilling signal to companies considering long-lived energy investments in the United States. States that had partnered with federal agencies on demonstration projects now face the choice of backfilling the lost funding or shelving initiatives outright.
Yet the economics of renewable energy are working against the policy direction. The Department of Energy’s own benchmarks for solar costs, which include PV-only and PV-plus-storage levelized cost of energy figures adjusted to 2023 dollars, show that solar has become one of the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in the country. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that new electric generating capacity will reach a record high in 2026, driven largely by another big year for utility-scale solar additions. In its short-term outlook, the agency’s forecasts for renewables and fossil generation show solar and wind capacity rising while coal continues its long decline and natural gas growth slows. That trajectory suggests market forces are pulling capital toward renewables regardless of what Washington does with federal incentives, creating a tension between policy hostility and economic gravity that utilities and investors must now navigate.
Global Isolation and the Economic Gamble
The domestic retreat now has an international dimension. The United States has signaled an intent to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundational treaty that has governed global climate cooperation since 1992. While the administration framed the move as reclaiming sovereignty and avoiding economic burdens, it could leave U.S. diplomats without a formal seat at the table where future rules on carbon markets, technology transfer, and climate finance will be negotiated. For American firms hoping to sell clean technologies abroad, reduced U.S. leadership in those talks raises the risk that foreign standards and financing mechanisms will be shaped by competitors instead.
Other major economies are moving in the opposite direction, tying climate policy directly to industrial strategy. A Treasury Department announcement on green industrial investment emphasized how tax policy, credit support, and international coordination can be used to accelerate low-carbon manufacturing and infrastructure. European and Asian governments are building similar packages, seeking to anchor supply chains for batteries, solar components, and clean steel within their borders. Against that backdrop, the United States is betting that cheaper fossil fuels and lighter regulation will keep its industries competitive, even as global demand tilts toward cleaner products. The risk is that this short-term bet locks in aging infrastructure, cedes leadership in emerging technologies, and leaves American workers and manufacturers scrambling to catch up once the rest of the world has already set the rules of the next energy economy.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
