Trump Administration
Statutory Language? Who Cares About Statutory Language?
A new DOE guidance seems flatly contrary to the statute it’s acting under.
The Department of Energy has issued new guidance that cuts off rebates for people who replace a gas furnace with a heat pump. Under the new guidance, the rebate will be allowed only if the heat pump replaces an electric furnace. Unless I’m missing something, the statute creating the program says the exact opposite. I suppose maybe at this stage I should find this blithe lack of concern for legality unsurprising. Maybe I haven’t adjusted to the Trump era as much as I’d thought. The rebate program specifically covers “any “project that includes [among other things] … the purchase or installation … of an electric heat pump … to replace a nonelectric appliance.”
The Latest Step in Trump’s War on Science
OMB’s proposed new rule seeks to politicize research funding across the entire federal government
Last week, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a sweeping new regulation of grants across the federal government. Here are two quick takeaways. First, OMB gives every sign of realizing it is on shaky legal ground. Second, the OMB rule seeks to continue Trump’s 2025 campaign to rip apart research funding. The goals of that campaign were to destabilize scientific research; squelch research on forbidden topics like climate change, clean energy, race, and gender; and inhibit academic criticism of the Administration. The legal basis for the 2025 campaign was dubious, resulting in serious litigation setbacks. OMB is now trying to create a foundation for making the war on science permanent.
CONTINUE READINGGas Pains
Higher gas prices are inflicting real pain on lower-income families.
Commentators seem bemused by the intense political reaction to gasoline prices, which are up by about a dollar a gallon due to the war. No doubt the reaction is accentuated because gas prices are highly visible. People buy gas frequently and even more frequently see signs posting the prices. But to a greater extent than many in the upper income distribution appreciate, the actual economic pain is very real. Current price increases presumably won’t be permanent, but the problem isn’t going to go away quickly and might well get worse.
CONTINUE READINGHow Trump Is Boosting Clean Energy Everywhere Else
It’s partly the Iran war. But there’s also another reason.
One of the winners from Trump’s presidency has been the clean energy industry. He’s had some success in his U.S. campaign to slow clean tech, but the global picture is quite different. If anything, Trump is boosting the energy transition outside the United States. We are still the world’s largest economy, but we’re only 15% of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity). The rest of the world no longer dances to our tune.
The Iran War has been Trump’s most notable contribution to the global energy transition. Chinese solar exports doubled in a single month, an incredible surge. The war has been a sobering lessen to many countries about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
Trump versus Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA’s disavowal of CBA is the culmination of a longer assault.
EPA recently said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might be still subject to cost benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when Trump took office in 2017. By 2018, Trump’s executive orders and other administration actions had led me to write a post about “the rise of benefit-blind analysis.” Little did I know what was coming down the road.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s FEMA Review
Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. Its basic strategy is flawed.
After much delay, Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. While the report has some good ideas, much of it resolves around the same strategy: move current problems from the federal government to the states rather than fixing them. Moving responsibilities around doesn’t make them go away. And the reality is that many states will be unable to manage these tasks efficiently. They also lack the federal government’s capacity and economies of scale. And while the federal government will do less itself, it will become more intrusive on state operations, so there’s no clear gain in terms of federalism.
CONTINUE READINGThe 2026 Election and the Environment
Trump will still be able to take a lot of anti-environmental actions. But not as many as today.
I published a post a week ago about prospects for the upcoming 2026 elections. I didn’t say much, however, about why the results will matter for the environment. No matter what happens electorally, Trump will still be in the White House and able to use executive powers to favor fossil fuels and bulldoze environmental protections. Nevertheless, the elections could still make a real difference in environmental terms. Even just taking the House would matter, but there are additional potential environmental gains if there are power shifts in the Senate or governorships.
The best way to understand the shifts is probably to look at what Trump has been able to do with the support of Congress and then consider how the situation would shift if Democrats take one or both Houses.
Bending Under Pressure
Every now and then, the Trump Administration shows signs of reluctantly giving in to reality.
The Trump Administration’s basic stance has been to pursue ideological purity all costs, beginning with the “shock and awe” campaign of the first year. Don’t expect miracles, but there are at least a few signs that the Administration is tempering that strategy. It’s a bit comforting to see indications that reality is slowly sinking in. It’s also evidence that resistance to Trump policies isn’t futile.
Any trend toward saner policies is likely to be very limited. For instance, Trump and his supporters are too invested in climate denial to ever admit that climate change is a serious problem. The best we might hope for is that they ease up just a little on their war against clean energy. There are at least some hints that this may be starting to happen.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding the Energy Dominance Agenda
What does this key concept in Trump’s energy policy actually mean?
The term “energy dominance” is at the core of the Trump Administration’s energy and environmental policies. But hat does it mean? Trump fleshed out the concept of energy dominance when he proclaimed October to be “National Energy Dominance Month.” (He forgot to issue the proclamation until halfway through the month, meaning it got even less attention than it might have otherwise received. Still, it unpacks some of his thinking in a useful way. Below, I’ll try to tease out answers to some of the key questions.
CONTINUE READINGHow, Exactly, Has Trump Gone After EVs?
A close look at the Administration’s wreckage, in six steps
The second Trump Administration has brought a flood of obstacles to the national effort to transition away from petroleum-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). These challenges have come in many forms across multiple levels of government; they are in most cases completely unprecedented, and in many cases legally dubious (to put it mildly). The push …
Continue reading “How, Exactly, Has Trump Gone After EVs?”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
