As winter tightens its grip across the United States, the nation’s energy landscape is facing a series of seismic shifts, policy reversals, and mounting challenges for low-income families. Recent moves by the Trump administration have upended ambitious clean energy plans, redirected federal funding, and reignited debates over the future of the country’s power infrastructure—leaving Americans, especially the most vulnerable, bracing for colder nights and higher bills.
At the heart of the issue is the delayed release of critical energy assistance funds. In late November 2025, after weeks of uncertainty caused by the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, the Department of Health and Human Services finally disbursed $3.6 billion in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding. According to Canary Media, this annual support—vital for millions struggling to cover heating costs—typically arrives in early November. The delay forced several states to suspend their heating-assistance programs, leaving families in limbo just as temperatures began to drop. For many, the setback was compounded by simultaneous pauses in other federal aid, like SNAP and WIC, also disrupted by the shutdown.
But the delay may be just the beginning. The Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal aims to eliminate LIHEAP altogether, arguing that “energy dominance, lower prices, and an America First economic platform” will better support low-income Americans. Yet, as Canary Media points out, these lower prices have yet to materialize. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association projects that home heating costs will surge by about 7.6% this winter—outpacing inflation and hitting rural families, who rely on trucked-in propane and gas, especially hard. The gap between political promises and lived reality is growing wider by the day.
Meanwhile, the administration’s approach to energy efficiency and weatherization programs has triggered further alarm. Earlier in 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed ending or privatizing the Energy Star program, a trusted guide for consumers seeking energy-efficient appliances. While the EPA ultimately renewed its contract with the program’s managing consultant in November, E&E News reports that Energy Star’s long-term survival remains uncertain. This is no small matter: the Institute for Market Transformation estimates Energy Star saves Americans $40 billion annually on energy bills, at a federal cost of just $32 million in 2024.
The Department of Energy’s 2026 budget proposal goes even further, seeking to eliminate all funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Over its 50-year history, WAP has enabled millions of low-income households to make energy-saving home improvements. Every dollar invested in WAP yields $1.72 in direct energy benefits and another $2.78 in health and related savings—a remarkable return for both families and taxpayers. Despite these successes, the future of both programs now hangs in the balance.
The political calculus around energy is also shifting in unexpected ways. Governors in New York and New England, once at the forefront of phasing out fossil fuels, have begun to reconsider their positions amid rising heating costs. In November, New York paused its ban on gas hookups in new construction, while Massachusetts debated—but ultimately rejected—measures that would have weakened progress on all-electric buildings. Even clean energy victories have come with concessions: after the Trump administration lifted a stop-work order on the Empire Wind offshore project, New York officials authorized a previously rejected gas pipeline, though Governor Kathy Hochul denied any quid pro quo.
At the federal level, President Trump has targeted Biden-era fuel economy regulations, which required light-duty vehicles to average 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. The new administration’s rollback lowers the standard to about 34.5 mpg—essentially reverting to levels from Trump’s first term. The White House has labeled the previous rules an "EV mandate" that would have raised car prices by up to $1,000, but analysts told Politico that relaxing standards won’t make cars cheaper in the near term. The Biden-era rules were expected to save drivers a combined $35 billion in fuel costs over their vehicles’ lifespans, savings now at risk.
Against this backdrop, the Pacific Northwest has become a flashpoint for the nation’s energy debates. On December 4, 2025, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright toured the Lower Snake River dams in Washington state, just months after President Trump scrapped the 2023 Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. That deal, championed by the Biden administration with a $1 billion commitment, would have removed four dams to help struggling salmon runs, while investing in clean energy projects led by tribal nations and replacing essential infrastructure services.
Secretary Wright, addressing reporters outside the Ice Harbor Dam, made the administration’s stance clear: “Everything we can do to lower the price of electricity, lower the price of gasoline, lower the price of energy of all kinds. That’s what makes people’s lives better. That’s what makes businesses and opportunities thrive in our country.” He dismissed the Biden-era plan to remove the dams as “crazy,” calling it an “energy subtraction policy.” Wright touted the dams’ 3,000 megawatts of capacity, though, as Canary Media notes, their actual generation is about a third of that each year—and even less during droughts, which are becoming more frequent as the climate warms.
Yet the administration’s broader energy policy has been marked by contradictions and reversals. While professing support for affordable, reliable power, the Trump administration has slashed billions in renewable energy subsidies, including an estimated $8.7 billion loss of clean-energy investment for Washington state alone. Instead, the focus has shifted to fossil fuels and nuclear power, with federal fossil fuel subsidies already estimated at $34 billion annually and an additional $4 billion per year proposed in the administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Wright, himself a former fracking executive, insisted there are “no meaningful subsidies on fossil fuels,” despite longstanding federal support for the industry.
Renewable energy projects have not fared well under current policies. The administration has blocked permits for numerous wind and solar initiatives, particularly offshore wind, while pushing to keep fossil fuel plants operating beyond scheduled retirement dates. In Michigan, for instance, Trump administration orders to keep a large coal plant open past its planned closure have cost customers an extra $113 million, according to The Guardian. Meanwhile, state laws in places like Washington require all coal plants to close by the end of 2025 and mandate a greenhouse gas-free grid by 2045—objectives now at risk as federal policies shift.
Ironically, despite campaign promises to halve electricity rates, utility prices have climbed since Trump took office. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows increases of up to 11%, leaving many Americans paying more for power even as federal support is cut and clean energy initiatives stall.
In the midst of these policy battles, some states are forging ahead. Illinois, for example, is using provisions from its clean-energy law to help residents replace gas appliances with electric alternatives at no cost—a small but significant step toward a more sustainable future.
As the nation stands at a crossroads, the choices made in Washington—both D.C. and at the state level—will shape not only the cost and reliability of energy, but also the health, well-being, and economic security of millions of Americans. The coming months promise more heated debates, tough decisions, and uncertain outcomes as winter’s chill settles in.
