The energy gridlock: Trump’s executive order pits affordable energy against green alternatives

09/17/2025 / By Willow Tohi

Trump signs order to end “green energy” subsidies, citing national security and affordability concerns.
Critics argue the move will hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions and compete globally.
New report warns of potential 100x increase in blackouts by 2030 if reliable power sources are not expanded.
Energy Secretary calls for increased supply of around-the-clock, reliable power to meet growing demand.
Congress debates legislation to ensure affordability, reliability and clean energy for all Americans.

As the nation grapples with a complex tapestry of economic and environmental challenges, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at phasing out federal subsidies for green energy, specifically targeting wind and solar projects. The move, a cornerstone policy of his administration, has sparked intense debate over the future of the U.S. energy sector.

A shift in federal policy: Ending “green” subsidies

In July, President Trump issued an executive order to phase out federal subsidies for wind and solar energy. The directive, aimed at reducing reliance on what the administration deems expensive and unreliable energy sources, is a significant pivot in national energy strategy. “For too long, the federal government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” the order emphasized. Trump’s action also highlights concerns over national security: “Reliance on so-called “green” subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”

The executive order mandates the Treasury Secretary to enforce the termination of the clean electricity production and investment tax credits within 45 days of the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which was enacted in a recent marathon session of Congress. The order further directs the Interior Secretary to review and revise regulations that provide preferential treatment to wind and solar facilities over dispatchable energy sources, such as natural gas and nuclear power.

Resistance from clean energy advocates

Clean energy advocates and industry professionals have responded with criticism, warning that the executive order could set the country back significantly in the global race for renewable energy. Sarah Wright, CEO of Utah Clean Energy, described the move as a “backward” strategy. “While the global energy market is charging ahead with investments in new energy resources to meet exploding energy demand, this Executive Order is attempting to shackle America to the past,” she stated. Critics argue that renewable energies like wind and solar are essential for ensuring the U.S. has “reliable, affordable and abundant energy” to meet future demands.

Grid reliability concerns

Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a report highlighting critical gaps in the nation’s energy grid reliability and security. The DOE warned that, under current conditions, blackouts could increase by 100 times by 2030 if reliable power sources continue to be shuttered and not timely replaced. Energy Secretary Chris Wright underscored the urgency: “If we are going to keep the lights on, win the AI race and keep electricity prices from skyrocketing, the United States must unleash American energy.”

The legislative response

In response to these challenges, lawmakers are drafting the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES). The legislation aims to ensure energy certainty for all Americans by promoting diverse energy sources while maintaining affordability and environmental goals. Louisiana has taken a lead in this initiative with the passage of similar legislation that guarantees “equal treatment for all energy sources.” Further, the bill supports over 306,000 oil and gas jobs and promises consumer transparency. Republican congressmembers are working to consolidate such efforts across the states, countering the radical left’s strategy of enshrining “100 percent clean-energy policies” in state laws.

Historical context: The Inflation Reduction Act

This current debate is not isolated but part of a broader struggle that began with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, signed into law by former President Joe Biden. It committed $369 billion to environmental projects, with the intent of promoting clean energy alternatives. However, Biden acknowledged the misnomer, stating, “I wish I hadn’t called it that, because it has less to do with reducing inflation than it does to do with dealing with providing for alternatives that generate economic growth.” This admission further underscores the complexity of the issue, given the act’s claimed inflation reductions have largely failed to materialize.

Navigating the energy landscape: Future prospects

As the nation debates its energy future, the underlying question remains: How do we balance the need for affordable, reliable energy with the imperative for environmental sustainability? The DOE’s dire forecasts compel immediate action to prevent grid deficiencies from ballooning into a crisis. The administration’s push to revert to traditional energy sources aligns with national security concerns but leaves unanswered questions about long-term environmental sustainability.

Navigating the energy crisis: A crossroads for energy policy

The U.S. stands at a crossroads, where the battle lines are drawn between the proponents of green energy and those advocating for traditional, reliable and secure resources. As the executive order shapes the energy discourse, it prompts a reevaluation of the nation’s energy policy. The stakes are high, and the decisions made today will shape the energy framework for generations to come. It is imperative that a balanced, sustainable and inclusive approach be taken—one that addresses the needs of current economic stability while laying the groundwork for a future of clean, reliable energy. This multi-faceted challenge demands thoughtful deliberation and prudent policy-making.

Sources for this article include: