Call it a power play. On his first day back in the White House, US President Donald Trump issued a slew of statements and executive orders affecting US energy policy. In his inaugural address, Trump promised to declare a “national energy emergency” and use the powers of his office to bring down energy prices, fill US strategic reserves, and export US energy all over the world. The speed and scope of Trump’s directives and announcements so far indicate his emphasis on transforming US energy—including undoing many of his predecessor’s efforts to boost clean energy and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Below, Atlantic Council experts answer seven pressing questions about Trump’s energy agenda.
1. What impact will Trump’s first-day executive orders likely have on energy?
As expected, Trump’s return to the Oval Office quickly underscored that enabling energy production is a central pillar of his mandate to manage inflation and advance US national security priorities via energy markets.
For now, Trump’s plan to “drill, baby, drill” is still in its nascency. An executive order declaring a national energy emergency sets the stage to fast-track energy permitting and infrastructure, but not before a period of study and scoping from the relevant agency authorities. Once this period is complete, how the oil and gas sector balances a more permissive policy environment with its commitments to capital returns, which have been a dominant thread in the shale patch for the past several years, will bear significantly on the pathway to energy dominance. As a result, it’s possible that the immediate impact of the executive order will be seen in expanded exploration rather than a boom in production. Similarly, Trump’s decision to lift the Department of Energy’s pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export license approvals has been received with enthusiasm from international partners such as Japan, but it will take time to produce tangible results in the market.
The most important space to watch remains how these efforts intersect with wider foreign policy and trade initiatives yet to be solidified by the Trump administration. The widely anticipated rollout of tariffs against key US trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union, has been given some room to breathe (possibly until February 1), as opposed to the “day one” tariffs that were promised on the campaign trail. The final makeup of these policies could have a strong effect on Trump’s energy agenda, from securing supply chains and growing domestic manufacturing to expanding energy exports. How the Trump administration chooses to approach sanctions against Iran, Russia, and Venezuela will also shape the global energy market.
But even with these other currently unknown factors, Trump’s first day in office made clear a commitment to maximize energy policy’s contributions to US economic and national security priorities. Trump’s initial steps toward energy dominance should be taken seriously by US partners, allies, and rivals insomuch as they intersect with the rest of the president’s agenda. By the same token, as a president who only has four years left in the White House, the most unpredictable variables may be his patience to see a return on these policy investments and whether a doubling down is on the horizon.
—Reed Blakemore is a director with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.
2. Is the US experiencing a national energy emergency? What does that mean?
The declaration of a national energy emergency, and the lengthy executive order implementing it, are a powerful statement of the Trump administration’s intentions to promote fossil energy and mineral development, as well as to punish renewable energy and climate mitigation initiatives to the maximum extent possible. It is important, however, to understand this declaration as intention not action. The process of revising or rescinding regulations will take time and be subject to legal challenge. The desire to increase investment in oil and gas production will be driven by demand and potential returns on new investment, which will in turn be challenged by the economic growth of the United States’ primary markets and threatened new tariffs.
Decisions on investment and renewable energy will be driven by state-level policy, utility economics, and consumer expectations. US foreign policy—from the expected maximum pressure sanctions on Iran, to the fate of the current licensing system for Venezuela, to the implementation of sanctions on Russia—will play an outsize role in the price formation for gasoline for US consumers. The new administration’s expected policies have driven those prices up, not down. These are early days and only a handful of the officials responsible for developing and implementing the executive orders’ aspirations are in their seats. Headlines come fast, but change comes more slowly.
—David Goldwyn is president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, LLC, an international energy advisory consultancy, and chairman of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center’s Energy Advisory Group.
***
This week, the Trump administration declared a national energy emergency, showcasing its emphasis on “energy dominance” as core to its domestic and foreign policy. The declaration is grounded in three assertions: that high energy prices impair national security, that US allies benefit from exports of abundant US energy, and that “[e]nergy security is an increasingly crucial theater of global competition.” Each of these assertions is valid, although the appropriate policy implications may be in the eye of the beholder. The Trump administration seeks to eliminate as much permitting red tape at the federal level as possible and reduce restrictions for both on- and offshore energy production. Notably, though, the administration removed most renewable energies from its official “energy” definitions, prioritizing conventional fuels such as oil and gas.
It is unclear, however, whether these specific actions will address the “emergency” at hand. The federal government has historically been able to do little to expedite permitting without legislative action from Congress. Likewise, state governments and local stakeholders retain vast powers under the US Constitution and existing laws to set their own energy agendas. While analysts may argue over whether the United States is in an energy emergency, the Trump administration’s available toolset to address one remains limited with or without an official declaration.
—Andrea Clabough is an associate at Goldwyn Global Strategies, LLC, and a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.
3. What does Trump’s energy agenda mean for competition with China?
Trump’s legacy will likely be defined by geopolitical competition with China, with energy playing a key role. Three issues stand out: US energy exports, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced batteries.
Trump seeks to gain geopolitical leverage by boosting oil and gas exports, enabling higher US economic growth and strengthening the energy security of key US allies and partners. Trump’s policies seem focused on raising domestic hydrocarbon production rather than curbing demand—although both steps taken in tandem would more powerfully grow exports. Nearly doubling US LNG export capacity by 2028 will complicate the already-complex relationship with China, the world’s largest LNG importer.
AI, which holds massive economic, strategic, and military potential, may prove to be the most consequential factor shaping the US-China competition. AI requires electricity-intensive data centers, but the aging US grid is strained by surging demand even as permitting red tape constrains new supply. Trump’s ability to reform transmission policy and ensure a diverse, low-cost energy mix may determine if the United States has sufficient electricity to outcompete China in AI.
Finally, advanced batteries are not only commercially important—they also have substantial (if underappreciated) military applications across unmanned systems, submarines, and electronic warfare systems. For instance, the Department of Defense recently designated Chinese battery maker CATL as a Chinese military company, possibly because of potential collaboration with the Chinese navy on lithium-ion battery-powered submarines. Trump’s energy legacy will be determined, in part, by the United States’ ability to outcompete China on advanced batteries, a technology with profound commercial and military applications.
—Joseph Webster is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center and Indo-Pacific Security Initiative; he also edits the independent China-Russia Report.
4. What are the likely implications of Trump’s orders to boost oil and gas production and end the pause on LNG terminal approvals?
Former US President Joe Biden’s halting of new export permits caused significant damage to the United States’ reputation as a reliable energy supplier. This greatly affected the planned access to gas of US allies, especially in Asia and Germany. In response, Japan sought to increase LNG imports from Qatar and other Middle Eastern producers. Gas importers look for long-term reliable supplies, and the flip-flopping of US energy policies with each election cycle projects undependability. Thus, Trump’s cancellation of this halt is not enough to restore confidence in gas buyers that future exports won’t just be halted again by a different administration.
Trump’s planned canceling of special taxes on methane and removal of layers of bureaucracy that were imposed on natural gas production will lead to increased investments in natural gas. The two main factors in inflation are government spending and energy costs (which reverberate onto the cost of every good). Increased natural gas production is essential to Trump’s plan to lower US inflation, since it will lower the price of natural gas, electricity, and almost every produced good.
—Brenda Shaffer is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.
***
It will take some time for global energy markets to experience the effects of the energy-related executive orders Trump signed on his first day in office. The LNG industry and its investors are enthused by the directive to resume the permitting process for new LNG facilities, but because of the time lag in permitting and construction, markets won’t feel the impact for several years. The US automotive industry is most directly impacted by Trump’s decision to scrap the Environmental Protection Agency’s new tailpipe emission regulations that would have effectively imposed electric vehicle (EV) mandates on new car sales in the future. Automakers that were in the process of shifting to EVs and retiring internal combustion engine models will need to reconsider these plans in light of consumer preference since government regulations effectively mandating EV sales cannot be depended on to push demand.
Ultimately, the most influential executive orders will likely be those speeding the permitting process for pipelines, power plants, and energy transmission. We need more pipelines to bring natural gas to areas of the country experiencing growth in power demand, more power plants to convert fuel to energy, and better ways to transmit electricity across distances. More and better infrastructure will spur fuel production, help bring down prices for consumers, and power economic growth. While US oil and gas production is not likely to change dramatically this year as a result of Trump’s recent executive orders, domestic and global markets will feel the impacts in the years to come, especially if these changes are cemented through legislation. Executive orders are rescinded as easily as they are issued, and most energy and infrastructure projects take longer than a four-year presidential administration to come to fruition. If the Trump administration is truly committed to its energy agenda, it must find a way to make these regulatory policies last longer than Trump’s tenure in office.
—Ellen R. Wald is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and the president of Transversal Consulting.
5. What should we expect from Trump on nuclear energy?
The Trump administration is likely to be bullish on nuclear energy, viewing it as a tool to unleash US energy dominance. Trump will most likely wish to compete in the global market against Russian and Chinese civil nuclear exports, and the new administration will probably wish to meet demand from like-minded countries for US nuclear energy technologies, including large light-water reactors and next generation technologies such as small modular reactors and micro reactors.
Trump has already named several nuclear energy supporters to key roles: Chris Wright, Trump’s choice for US secretary of energy, is best known for his role as chief executive officer of Liberty Energy, a natural gas company, but he has also served on the board of advanced reactor company Oklo and, in 2023, Wright signed a letter supporting nuclear energy.
Other administration picks include Wells Griffith for under secretary of energy at the Department of Energy. During Trump’s first administration, Griffith served as senior advisor to the chief executive officer of the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), where he played a role in lifting the DFC’s ban on nuclear project finance. Trump has selected former Congressman Brandon Williams to be the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration; Williams began his career by serving in the nuclear Navy, and he introduced nuclear energy legislation during his time in Congress.
—Jennifer T. Gordon is the director for the Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.
6. What could be the domestic and global impact of the United States rolling back clean energy initiatives?
During Trump’s first two days in office, he quickly began his attack on climate policies and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act (BIA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed during the Biden administration. He has shifted the focus of US energy policy from renewable development to increasing oil and gas exploration, production, and export, declaring a national energy emergency. In addition to withdrawing (again) from the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump is aiming to scrap programs that advance EVs and offshore wind development.
In promoting investments in AI and recognizing the surge in demand resulting from data centers, he has indicated the need to increase electricity generation; but utilities have been looking to renewable energy with storage, as well as gas and nuclear power to meet this demand growth. The full dimensions of Trump’s efforts, and their impact on government funding, tax credits, and regulations for specific energy technology areas, will emerge in time and will no doubt be subject to many legal challenges. By executive order, he has put a pause on disbursements under both the BIA and the IRA and required federal agencies to report to the National Economic Council on priorities within ninety days.
Even these early actions send a signal to the rest of the world that the US government’s commitment to cooperation in the global clean energy transition is changing and likely weakening. Actions to impose tariffs are likely to follow and will further increase strains in relations. In November, nations agreed at the 2024 United Nations Climate Conference, also known as COP29, to boost support for developing countries in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. But this week, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio put a ninety-day freeze on the disbursement of US assistance funds, which include significant support for the clean energy transition (i.e., about $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2023), not to mention for Ukraine and other strategically important nations. Even this temporary pause will open more space for China to assert leadership in responding to nations’ interest in climate and clean energy development and reduce US government support for US private industry in-country clean energy investment and trade efforts.
—Robert F. Ichord, Jr. is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center where he is authoring a policy series on power sector transformation in developing countries and supporting the Council’s work on US nuclear leadership and US national security.
***
The Trump administration’s rollback of clean energy initiatives marks a significant shift that could reshape global energy dynamics and climate action. By prioritizing fossil fuel expansion through policies like expedited drilling permits and LNG export approvals, the United States is poised to become an even more dominant oil and gas producer. While this shift may boost domestic energy production and exports, enhancing energy security—particularly for Europe—it comes at a critical juncture and could be costly to the United States’ clean technology leadership.
Pausing wind energy development, revoking EV targets, and freezing climate law funding will likely stall US progress in developing domestic clean energy supply chains and manufacturing capacity. This opens the door for China to further cement its dominance in clean technology manufacturing and critical minerals processing. The United States risks ceding ground in emerging industries such as green hydrogen, carbon capture, and advanced batteries, which are crucial for a decarbonized global economy.
While state and corporate climate initiatives may help maintain some momentum, reduced US leadership threatens to slow global decarbonization. Ultimately, the lack of coordinated federal action is likely to undermine international cooperation and technology transfer, vital for building climate resilience both at home and abroad. With extreme weather events already reaching century-high costs nationwide, the Trump administration may need to include solutions to address escalating physical risks in its toolkit to “make America great again.”
—Liliana Diaz is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and an adjunct professor of energy, climate policy, and markets in the Americas at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
7. Can the United States under Trump continue to lead on clean energy initiatives?
US clean energy initiatives—many of them conceived with strong bipartisan support—are one avenue for US leadership as a dominant energy supplier. The US government, across many administrations, has been pioneering supply-side incentives that encourage the private sector to make investments at massive scale. We have already seen improved clean energy technology, innovations in business models and project development, and increased investment in the sector.
With regard to those tax credits that have been already implemented, the industry has designed projects to be compliant with those credits and is already moving forward—on tight timelines—on a range of advanced clean energy technologies. To reach final investment decisions on at-scale projects, the industry needs certainty and political continuity. While the president has issued an executive order (titled Unleashing American Energy) focusing on evaluating appropriations resulting from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the tax credits already implemented remain unaffected.
With the United States seeking a global leadership role in energy innovation and exports, policymakers should carefully engage with industry to improve regulatory details to unlock cost reductions, encourage further private sector investments, and strengthen global competitiveness, especially vis-à-vis fast and effectively moving actors like China. Going forward, the government’s focus should remain on safeguarding investment certainty so projects already in planning can continue to progress.
—Lee Beck is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and SVP, Global Policy and Commercial Strategy, at HIF Global.
Further reading
Wed, Dec 11, 2024
The United States needs a durable national energy strategy
EnergySource By Sara Vakhshouri
The United States lacks a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy that can persist through election cycles and aligns energy security with broader national interests. Congress should address this shortfall by mandating a “National Energy Strategy” that establishes a durable energy policy framework.
Image: US President Donald Trump holds a document on the day he issues executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on Inauguration Day in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria