TL/DR –
The Trump Administration has deprioritized climate change regulation and pursued deregulatory measures, primarily in the oil and gas sector. It has acted against clean energy and climate initiatives, freezing access to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants and rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding, leading to lawsuits by multiple states. However, policy rollbacks may slow economic growth and increase energy costs, while some states continue to pursue clean energy and climate regulations.
Impact of Federal and State Climate Policies Under Examination
The federal energy policy under the Trump administration, which has lessened its focus on climate change regulation and enforcement, is under the microscope. This shift in priorities has been justified by the administration as a necessary step to achieve its energy goals, suggesting that climate legislation and state environmental initiatives are at odds with these objectives.
Actions Against Climate Initiatives
Across departments, the Trump administration has taken measures to oppose clean energy and climate initiatives. In 2025, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented 31 deregulatory actions mainly aimed at the oil and gas industry, and put a hold on existing initiatives to reduce emissions. Furthermore, the EPA blocked access to $20 billion worth of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants, which were crucial for climate nonprofits. In 2026, the endangerment finding from 2009 that mandated the regulation of greenhouse gases as pollutants by the EPA was abolished. This action sparked a wave of lawsuits against EPA from numerous states and local governments.
Funding Cuts and Deregulation
The Department of Energy has also followed suit, with funding being cut for 223 projects and 47 regulations being rolled back which pertain to product standards, energy use, and project processes. In the year 2025, the department ordered an old power plant in Pennsylvania to continue operations. Additionally, tariffs introduced by the administration hinder clean energy production by increasing material costs.
Effects of Federal Rollbacks
Despite research showing year-on-year improvements in air quality and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, scholars argue that federal rollbacks have slowed this progress. As a result, air quality has deteriorated, and emissions have significantly exceeded predictions based on previous trends. These reversals are projected to lead to a decline in U.S. economic growth and a slowdown in the rise of household income, resulting in a predicted loss of $1.1 trillion in cumulative output and $160 billion in household income over the next decade.
State-level Climate Action
Despite these federal rollbacks, many states continue to uphold clean energy and climate regulations. States including Virginia have established fast-track zoning and permitting laws for clean energy facilities. Others, like Vermont, have enacted legislation, such as the 2024 Climate Superfund Act, that allows the state to recover damages from fossil fuel companies for severe climate events. However, the terms of the recovery are still under development.
Counteractions to Climate Initiatives
Conversely, in the wake of federal climate initiatives being deprioritized, some states have taken similar steps. Louisiana, for instance, introduced the Louisiana Energy Protection Act, which provides protection to energy producers by preventing lawsuits over their emissions. Meanwhile, Florida’s HB 1217 prohibits local governmental entities from pursuing net zero emissions goals.
Federal Action Against State Policies
Through Executive Order 14260, President Trump has directed the Attorney General to take action against states and municipalities that are regulating energy production for the purpose of climate protection. Following this order, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Vermont over its Climate Superfund Law.
Scholarly Perspectives on Federal and State Climate Policies
As the impacts of these policy changes continue to unfold, scholars are discussing the actions and inactions of the federal and state governments in relation to climate and clean energy issues. The following are some of the key perspectives:
- Indiana University’s John D. Graham argues that the current Trump administration’s combination of congressional action and EPA efforts to undo Biden-era climate regulations represents a more sophisticated approach to climate deregulation than that seen in Trump’s first term. He raises concerns about the strategy’s judicial uncertainty and suggests that changes to regulatory policy and enforcement have the potential to sideline the federal government’s ability to address climate issues.
- Columbia Law School’s Vincent M. Nolette examines state preemption laws, which limit local government action on climate change. He contends that these laws contribute to the maintenance of fossil fuel use by restricting local government action against it. Nolette also highlights how federalism can either preserve or limit climate action depending on which level of government wields regulatory power.
- Fordham Law’s Adam Orford argues that the method by which the second Trump administration is dismantling climate initiatives could destabilize future federal planning by halting federal climate spending.
- Michigan Law’s Rachel Rothschild argues that state climate superfunds can effectively shift the burden of climate events from taxpayers to fossil fuel companies.
- In an article in Publius, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania analyze the durability of climate-related initiatives implemented under President Joe Biden. They argue that these initiatives were particularly vulnerable to change by a subsequent administration due to their extended timelines, complex coordination requirements, and reliance on state and local actors.
- In a University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, Sharon Jacobs, of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, and practitioner Pierre-Noe Milcamps, discuss how energy crises have led to a greater centralization of federal authority over U.S. energy policy. They express concerns about the lack of transparency, the bypassing of lawmaking, and the resulting imbalances in authority between federal and state governments.
—
Read More US Economic News