How Permanent Is Trump's Assault on Climate Action?

One year ago, with a stroke of his presidential Sharpie, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring a “national energy emergency.” The move was a direct fulfillment of his campaign promise to “drill, baby, drill,” and it set the tone for a year of aggressive environmental policy shifts.

What followed was a rapid and comprehensive reorientation of the executive branch’s priorities. From international treaties to domestic subsidies, the new administration moved swiftly to champion fossil fuels and dismantle the climate framework built by its predecessor.

It has been an extraordinarily destructive year.

While the flurry of activity has been effective in sowing uncertainty, the long-term impact of these changes remains a subject of intense debate among policy experts.

The administration’s early days were marked by a series of decisive executive orders aimed at reversing years of climate policy. A subsequent order pledged to revitalize America’s waning coal industry, eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles approved by Congress under former president Joe Biden, and loosen regulations for domestic producers of fossil fuels.

One of the most significant moves was the formal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the nearly unanimously-adopted international treaty that coordinates the global fight against climate change. This was followed by the resumption of liquefied natural gas permitting that had been paused by his predecessor and the reopening of United States coastlines to drilling.

The administration’s actions extended beyond fossil fuels. In the days following his inauguration, President Trump:

• Killed a climate jobs training program
• Closed off millions of acres of federal water for offshore wind development
• Scrubbed mentions of climate change from some federal agency websites

Beyond executive orders, the administration has pushed for legislative changes that could have a more lasting impact. The president successfully urged Congress to pass the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which phases out an extensive set of tax credits for wind, solar, electric vehicles, and other decarbonization tools.

This move has already had tangible consequences, with some companies abandoning new clean energy projects in response to the policy uncertainty. The attacks on the nation’s offshore wind industry have been particularly unrelenting, culminating in a blanket ban on offshore leases last month.

Regulatory agencies have also been directed to alter their course. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed a requirement for oil and gas operators to reduce methane emissions for a full year. Meanwhile, the Interior Department announced a $625 million investment to “reinvigorate and expand America’s coal industry” and directed a costly Michigan coal plant on the verge of closure to stay open.

Despite the scale of these changes, their permanence is far from guaranteed. Experts point out that many of the administration’s moves are executive actions, which can be reversed by a future president with the stroke of a pen. This inherent fragility defines the current policy landscape.

He is not changing law. He is changing practice.

Even the administration’s most aggressive regulatory moves, such as the EPA’s attempt to relinquish its authority to regulate emissions, could be unraveled by a future administration. While such a process would take years, it remains legally and politically possible.

The legal system also presents a check on executive authority. Federal judges in Rhode Island and New York recently allowed offshore wind farms in those states to resume construction, demonstrating that the administration’s blanket bans may not hold up in court.

The administration’s legislative record, while sparse, reveals a particular pattern. The climate-relevant portions of the Big Beautiful Bill are noteworthy for being subtractive rather than additive. The law eliminated certain tax credits but notably left in place credits for other sources of carbon-free energy, including nuclear and geothermal.

This nuance has been noted by more moderate Republicans who do not share the president’s dismissal of climate science. The focus appears to be less on radically altering U.S. energy law and more on refuting the legacy of the previous administration.

• Wind and solar tax credits were eliminated
• Electric vehicle subsidies were removed
• Nuclear and geothermal credits were maintained

As one Democratic representative noted, the goal of the previous administration’s climate legislation was fundamentally different from the current administration’s approach, which prioritizes political dominance over lasting policy change.

The past year has seen an unprecedented assault on the nation’s climate policy framework. However, the reliance on executive actions and the subtractive nature of its legislative achievements suggest that the changes may be more symbolic than structural.

Future administrations will have the power to reverse these executive orders and restore the regulatory framework. The true test of the administration’s impact will be whether its actions have opened up new areas for fossil fuel exploration in ways that cannot be easily undone.

As the dust settles, the central question remains: will these changes endure, or will they be remembered as a temporary detour in the long-term trajectory of U.S. climate policy?