Energy under Trump: The Climate Implications of Agenda 47

The United States of America is already the world’s top oil and natural gas-producing country, but President-elect Donald J. Trump isn’t content with first place — he wants to dominate. Between rally chants of “drill, baby, drill!” and promises to deliver $2.00-a-gallon gas prices, candidate Trump pitched himself as a visionary pro-business strategist whose Agenda 47 policies would promote American energy independence while supporting citizens’ pocketbooks. To guarantee the United States’ “lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth,” Trump intends to revitalize the fossil fuel industry by pulling the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, “remov[ing] all red tape” on domestic oil and natural gas projects (including on the embattled Keystone XL Pipeline and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), terminating Biden-era emissions guidelines, providing tax relief to oil and natural gas producers, and ending the electric vehicle “mandate.” Trump slashed over 125 carbon emissions regulations and related climate-conscious energy legislation in his first term. Now, the president-elect looks ready to push the envelope further.

Trump’s stance on American energy policy is no secret; what remains uncertain, however, is what will happen when the idealistic rubber of his campaign rhetoric meets the pragmatic road of real-world politics. This paper argues that, despite President-elect Trump’s many assets in government, including a Republican-majority House and Senate, he may struggle to achieve the energy policy goals articulated during his candidacy. Specifically, Trump’s promises to redouble domestic oil and natural gas production while delivering record-low energy prices face the practical hurdles of widespread public opposition, state-level resistance, and private companies’ operational independence. Whether a second Trump administration can make America “the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!” or achieve $2.00-a-gallon gas will rely heavily on powers outside the federal government.

Facing Trump’s fossil fuel-centric energy agenda is the simple fact that a majority of Americans care about climate change and want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. When a March 2024 Gallup poll asked Americans how much they worry about global warming, 42% of respondents said that it concerns them “a great deal,” while another 20% worry “a fair amount,” summing to nearly two-thirds of the population who express some form of concern about the Earth’s climate. A similar percentage noted their desire to see government officials doing more to fight climate change. Polling from Trump’s first four years in office found that approximately 61% of Americans felt that federal authorities did too little to protect the environment.  As of 2023, 57% of all registered voters prefer candidates publicly committed to fighting climate change. Agenda 47’s regulation-cutting fossil fuel-promoting policies contrast the majority opinion of Americans, who favor a climate-conscious approach to energy production.

As a testament to the popularity of climate-conscious energy policy, the weeks following Trump’s 2024 election victory saw myriad high-profile business and civic leaders call for moderation and consistency in American energy legislation. Speaking from the United Nations Climate Change Conference in early November, Exxon Mobil’s chief executive Darren Woods petitioned President-elect Trump to keep the United States party to the Paris Climate Accords, arguing that not only does humanity face a long-term “need to address global emissions,” but also that the “impact of policy switching back and forth as political cycles occur” is “not good for the economy.” Similar to Woods’ pragmatic ‘businesses need consistency to function’ argument, a group of Republican lawmakers lobbied House Speaker Mike Johnson to retain specific provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), particularly those supporting renewable energy development. Most IRA renewable energy investments are in Republican districts; removing funding would be a political blow. That numerous business executives and high-profile politicians have already vocalized support for status quo energy legislation hints towards a misalignment between Agenda 47 and prevailing socio-cultural headwinds, a discrepancy that could seriously challenge Trump’s ability to legislate. 

If President-elect Trump chooses to follow through on the energy policies outlined in Agenda 47, he could very realistically inflict political damage on himself and the Republican Party. Perhaps even more politically significant than the over 50% of citizens who care about climate change or the high-profile advocates of status quo energy legislation are the minority of voters for whom climate policy is their deciding issue. Around two percent of Americans view climate change as the “most important issue” facing the United States. While two percent of the electorate may not seem significant, these citizens’ valuation of climate policy above all other policy domains carries real electoral weight. One recent analysis from the University of Colorado found that climate change opinion “probably cost Republicans the 2020 presidential election, all else being equal.” In a contest decided by razor-thin margins–10,000 votes in Georgia, 20,000 in Wisconsin–the paper’s authors estimate that Democrats’ perceived strength on climate policy was an election-deciding advantage.

Even if President-elect Trump ignores widespread climate anxiety, high-profile opposition among business leaders and political allies, and potential political damages, he will still face an uphill battle bringing individual state governments in alignment with Agenda 47’s energy policies. Federalism in America–the foundational division of administrative powers between the federal government and individual states–grants state governments significant discretion in enacting their climate policies. California, for instance, passed legislation requiring that one hundred percent of vehicles sold by 2035 be fully electric. Eleven other states and the District of Columbia have followed California’s lead in enacting similar electric vehicle mandates, and automakers have responded by announcing commensurate goals for electric vehicle production. On electric vehicles and in other energy policy domains, state and city governments are powerful actors whose actions shape the overall trajectory of American energy production. In 2017, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti estimated that between seventy and eighty percent of the policy work in reducing greenhouse gas emissions happens within state and local legislatures. If Donald Trump hopes to revolutionize American oil and natural gas production, he must enlist the help of all fifty states and countless other city and county governments. 

Not only do sub-federal governments have the power to enact energy legislation independently of the federal government, but they can also, through various methods, subvert federal leadership. President-elect Trump campaigned to leave the Paris Climate Accords and may act on his promise as early as his first day in office. However, historical precedent shows that Trump’s likely withdrawal from Paris won’t be without its rebuttal. When Trump first left the Accords in 2020, an alliance of “shadow participant” state and city governments promptly announced their intentions to follow the agreement independently. States involved included California, Washington, and New York, while the city of Los Angeles headed a coalition of more than 150 local governments. Precedent also demonstrates what happens when federal and sub-federal authorities clash on energy legislation. During Trump’s first administration, 83% of environmental regulations-related court cases between Trump’s federal government and the state of California were decided in California’s favor. And although Trump repeatedly threatened to withhold federal disaster relief funds from California over energy policy and climate-related conflicts, federal relief almost invariably came as expected. The fact that state and local governments frequently and successfully overrode the first Trump administration complicates the future of Agenda 47’s energy policy ambitions. 

Widespread pushback and federalism aside, the crux of President-elect Trump’s energy vision boils down to “drill, baby, drill!”– that is, revolutionizing the American fossil fuel industry by redoubling domestic oil and natural gas production. A simple but formidable barrier stands between Trump and the attainment of his goal: the United States’ lack of a fossil fuels-producing government corporation. Unlike Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia, America doesn’t operate a state-owned oil company, meaning that Trump cannot unilaterally decide to increase energy production and must instead appeal to the whims of private corporations operating in the free market. In this context, Trump’s campaign pledge to deliver $2.00-a-gallon gas appears especially overzealous. The market for fossil fuels is already oversaturated and facing stiff competition from renewable energies, with solar recently becoming the “cheapest source of new-build electricity” across much of the United States. TotalEnergies chief executive Patrick Pouyanne noted that regardless of how Trump handles American energy policy and what incentives (or threats) he levies, “it’s not [up to] decisions by politicians” whether companies will necessarily increase their output. Even during Trump’s first regulation-slashing EPA-weakening first four years in office, the only times national gas prices fell below $2 were during April and May of 2020, when the extenuating circumstances of COVID-19 lockdowns cut demand. Trump can eliminate environmental red tape and cut regulations all he wants, but final production decisions will fall into the hands of corporate executives responsive to complex market forces. 

Public support for climate change solutions, the power of state and local governments to pursue independent energy policy, and private corporations’ executive authority over fossil fuel production decisions all pose significant hurdles in President-elect Trump’s ability to realize his campaign promises. While the president-elect may enact much of his desired energy policy legislation, the powers of his authority are necessarily limited. With each federal land he leases for drilling, Trump risks political damages; with each EPA regulation he slashes, he incites state resistance; with each “drill, baby, drill!” chant, he faces an unconvinced corporate board. Trump may achieve his desired energy policy outcomes, but if he does, they won’t be accomplished alone. Public sentiment, sub-federal governing bodies, and the private sector remain the most powerful forces in American energy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Biography of Author

Evan Stubbs is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania who majors in Political Science and International Relations.

Edited By: J’Mauri Jackson, PhD ’27 // Alina DeVoogd, MPP/MS ’27 // Major Stevens, MPP/MS ’26