Republicans say they want energy dominance. But will ‘big bill’ deliver?
Soon after he took office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a “national energy emergency.” Expanding U.S. energy infrastructure and increasing power production was crucial for both the economy and national security, he argued, and he promised to unleash fossil fuels, reduce bureaucratic barriers to new projects, and invest in next-generation nuclear and geothermal power.
To supporters, the moves marked the sort of “America First,” forward-looking energy policy needed to meet what most analysts say will be a jump in electricity demand over the next decade. Although the United States currently produces more than enough energy to cover its needs, the rise of data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric vehicles and heating systems is expected to spike demand and stress the existing power grid.
But in recent months, there has been a growing worry on both sides of the aisle that the administration – and, more recently, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives – aren’t achieving an “all of the above” energy policy. Instead, they appear to be undermining a renewable-power sector that analysts say has not just improved America’s energy portfolio, but is also a big part of a nascent U.S. manufacturing revival.
Why We Wrote This
America needs a lot more electric power. The consensus around that is strong, but the Trump administration’s push for “energy dominance” is leaving out an important sector that has also been aiding a manufacturing revival.
Since August 2022, when a Democratic-controlled Congress passed a budget bill investing in green energy technologies, businesses in the sector have announced nearly 400 new factories and other projects. According to E2, a nonpartisan energy group, the law sparked $132 billion in private sector investment, as well as 123,000 new jobs – primarily in Republican-leaning districts. But since January, companies involved in next-generation energy systems have canceled or delayed planned investment worth some $14 billion, the group found – in large part because of fears about what both the administration and Congress might do to the industry.
“Biggest economic boom” in a generation
Indeed, since it came into office, the administration has taken aim at solar and wind power, as well as electric vehicle infrastructure projects, calling the industries part of a “green new scam” – a twist on the Democratic “Green New Deal” efforts to combat climate change. In recent months, the administration has blocked wind power projects, canceled clean energy grants, and paused renewable energy leases on federal land.
Although it has voiced support for both nuclear and geothermal power technology, it recently canceled grants worth $3.7 billion to help companies build out demonstration projects for everything from carbon capture technology to decarbonized cement manufacturing. And in the House version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” – the budget package now being considered in the Senate – legislators eliminated a slew of tax incentives and other support for renewable energy products.
According to a recent analysis by The Brattle Group, these tax credit eliminations would mean a $520 billion decrease in solar and wind investment before 2035, as well as higher electricity prices for ratepayers across the country.
Some lawmakers see the cuts as a way to pare bloated federal spending. But supporters of clean energy see preserving the programs as a foundation for growth.
“The most important thing to be focusing on is that we’re at the beginning of the biggest economic boom in this country we’ve seen in a generation,” says Bob Keefe, executive director of E2. “What’s happening in the Senate in the next couple of weeks will determine the fate of all of that economic growth. It will determine the fate of whether we have enough electricity to power everything we want to do in this country and whether we can compete with China. And right now, the red lights are flashing.”
Views that span party lines
Climate activists have for years pushed for renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels, which emit the greenhouse gases that, scientists say, are pushing up Earth’s temperatures. And many have been dismayed by the administration’s encouragement of new fossil fuel development, including of coal, arguably the most polluting power source in terms of both air quality and carbon emissions. Many see these Trump policies, combined with a gutting of the federal scientific agencies that measure and analyze the Earth’s atmosphere and warming, as part of a wholesale dismantling of anything that seems part of climate action.
But enthusiasm for – and concern about – clean energy innovation crosses party lines, and encompasses motivations that include cost savings and energy independence as well as the environment.
Earlier this year, the conservative clean energy group ClearPath polled American voters and found that 76% say it is extremely or very important that their representatives in Congress support clean energy. That includes 62% of Republicans.
When John Szoka, a Republican, was first elected to the North Carolina legislature in 2012, he says he figured solar power was “a bunch of garbage and only existed because of subsidies.” But he gradually learned how helpful the energy source was, he says – how it was cheap, fast, and increasingly beneficial for his constituents. Today, Mr. Szoka is the CEO of the right-leaning Conservative Energy Network, which champions “secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy.”
He says he is enthusiastic about the Trump administration’s focus on energy prosperity.
“Energy runs the world; energy runs America,” he says. “If we don’t have enough energy, we have problems.”
But he worries that lawmakers are missing key points about the country’s energy system. While he supports nuclear power and praises the administration’s efforts to streamline the innovation of small nuclear reactors, which many see as the next generation of the low-emission power source, he points out that nuclear and geothermal projects are years away from commercialization. He has no problem with gas power, either, but notes that turbine production is already backlogged. The easiest and cheapest power sources to bring on line short-term are solar and wind, along with battery storage, he says.
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, solar and wind were responsible for nearly 90% of total new U.S. power generation capacity during the first nine months of 2024. The U.S. grid operator that acts most like a free market – the Electric Reliability Council of Texas – often uses as much solar, wind, and battery power as it does fossil fuel and nuclear, in large part because it is the cheapest available power.
“Where Washington is missing the point is, we need a lot more energy and we need it now,” says Mr. Szoka. “If you just shut down solar and onshore wind, for whatever your reasons are, it’s not a good plan.”
A letter from House Republicans
Some lawmakers are showing signs they agree. Late last week, 13 Republicans who voted for the “Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed a letter asking the Senate to modify some of the provisions that would hurt the clean energy industry.
“We believe the Senate now has a critical opportunity to restore common sense and deliver a truly pro-energy growth final bill that protects taxpayers while also unleashing the potential of U.S. energy producers, manufacturers, and workers,” they wrote.
But there are signs that rhetoric around renewable energy has impacted mainstream Republican attitudes. Pew Research Center polling released last week shows a decline in Republican support for solar and wind, with 61% of Republicans saying they favor more solar power, down from 84% in 2000, and 48% favoring more wind power, down from 75%. To Daniel Bresette, president of the nonprofit Environmental and Energy Study Institute in Washington, this is part of why the decarbonization of American energy may well be slowing.
“It’s a story of a transition that was happening – and started happening more and faster and then had tail winds – and now it’s facing headwinds,” he says. “I didn’t find what has happened [with the reconciliation bill] in the House all that surprising,” he says. “I think there are other priorities.”
The challenge of uncertainty
Luke Bolar, who leads external affairs for ClearPath, says that he is encouraged by the administration’s focus on next-generation nuclear and geothermal – potential baseload power sources that his organization has promoted for years. But he also worries about the impact of the proposed elimination of largely technology-neutral energy tax credits – as well as proposals in the House that eliminate other financial incentives.
“To achieve the stated goals of the administration of energy dominance, we need to double our grid in the next couple of decades,” he says. “We need to build a lot of everything, and financing those projects is a challenge while keeping energy prices low. And so, tax incentives are effective in that regard.”
So is stability, says Columbia Business School economist Gernot Wagner. Eliminating tax credits that were promised for a decade undermines business planning – and undermines further innovation.
“If you’re a business, the last thing you want is policy uncertainty,” says Dr. Wagner. The House’s reconciliation bill, he says, seems to have “very little to do with reviving U.S. manufacturing. If anything, it seems the opposite.”
