In a move that has sent shockwaves through both the environmental policy world and the energy sector, the Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping rollback of climate accountability measures and slashed billions in funding for clean energy projects in Democratic-leaning states. The dual-pronged approach, announced in late September and early October 2025, has drawn fierce criticism from state officials, climate advocates, and business leaders, and raised questions about the future of American energy policy.
On September 12, 2025, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a rule that would eliminate mandatory carbon emissions reporting for most U.S. industries, including fossil fuel producers and refiners. The proposal targets the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), a system established with bipartisan support in 2008 that has become a cornerstone for tracking industrial emissions. Under the new rule, reporting obligations would be permanently removed for fossil gas distribution entities and suspended for other oil and gas facilities until 2034.
The decision comes amid a broader campaign by the White House to boost U.S. oil and gas production and exports, particularly to regions like the European Union (EU). But critics argue that eliminating emissions reporting could backfire, undermining the very companies the administration seeks to help. According to the Climate Policy Monitor at the UK’s Oxford University, at least nine major economies—including the EU, Brazil, China, and South Korea—require companies to disclose climate-related risks. The EU, for instance, will require exporters to disclose methane emissions starting in 2027, with the aim of limiting them by 2030. Without GHGRP data, U.S. companies may have to pay third parties for emissions accounting, potentially raising costs and complicating international trade.
“As the old saying goes, you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” notes a Columbia University review cited in the Climate Policy Monitor. The review found that mandatory, quantitative, and uniform disclosures can lead to “increased market share for a corporation that privately anticipates the economic consequences of disclosure, benchmarks its own performance relative to its competitors, and responds to public signals from investors, consumers, and regulators.”
Studies underscore the effectiveness of such programs. Facilities participating in the GHGRP reduced their emissions by nearly 8 percent within two years, driven by benchmarking and legislative pressures. “Requiring companies to measure and disclose risk-inducing externalities like global warming emissions brings other benefits to companies as well,” the Columbia review adds.
Yet, the Trump administration’s deregulatory push doesn’t end with emissions reporting. On October 1, 2025, the administration announced it would cut nearly $8 billion in funding for energy projects across 16 Democratic states, including California’s ambitious clean hydrogen initiative, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES). The Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed that it had terminated more than 300 financial awards associated with 223 projects, totaling $7.56 billion. All the affected states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—voted against Trump in the 2024 election. Meanwhile, Republican states with similar projects, such as Texas, were untouched by the cuts.
Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, was blunt in his reasoning: “Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” he declared on X (formerly Twitter). The DOE justified the move by stating that the projects “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.” The department noted that about a quarter of the awards had been issued by the Biden administration between Election Day and Trump’s inauguration, implying a political motivation behind the timing.
California Governor Gavin Newsom didn’t mince words in response. “In Trump’s America, energy policy is set by the highest bidder, economics and common sense be damned,” he said. “Clean hydrogen deserves to be part of California’s energy future—creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and saving billions in health costs. We’ll continue to pursue an all-of-the-above clean energy strategy that powers our future and cleans the air, no matter what D.C. tries to dictate.”
Senator Adam Schiff of California went further, calling the funding cuts “illegal punishment of political enemies.” He wrote on X, “Our democracy is badly broken when a president can illegally suspend projects for Blue states in order to punish his political enemies. They continue to break the law, and expect us to go along. Hell no.” Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) echoed the sentiment, describing the move as “purely vindictive” and warning it would “drive energy bills higher, increase unemployment, and eliminate jobs.”
The timing of the announcement was notable, coinciding with the first day of a U.S. government shutdown. Adding to the drama, the Department of Transportation simultaneously froze $18 billion for two major infrastructure projects in New York City, citing opposition to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion principles. The projects included a train tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey and a new subway line along Second Avenue.
While the Trump administration argues that its actions are in the nation’s economic interest, critics say the strategy is shortsighted. The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for 75 percent of global carbon emissions, and climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent and costly. Swiss Re, a leading global insurer, estimated that losses from natural catastrophes like hurricanes Milton and Helene reached $318 billion in 2024 alone, with an expected annual increase of about 6 percent. The Carbon Majors database, maintained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, attributes 94 percent of industrial carbon dioxide emissions since 1959 to just 122 fossil fuel and cement companies.
Internationally, the rollback of climate accountability measures puts the U.S. at odds with a growing global consensus. Public procurement contracts increasingly require sustainability standards, and advocacy groups are calling for mandatory emissions disclosure rules and climate transition plans. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, a coalition of financial institutions, recently suspended operations in response to the anti-sustainability climate in the U.S.
Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of England and a leading voice on climate risk, warned in his landmark 2015 speech “Tragedy of the Horizon” that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors, imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.” Carney argued that “by managing what gets measured, we can break the Tragedy of the Horizon,” emphasizing the need for early, predictable energy transition to minimize risks to both the climate and the financial system.
As the U.S. government pivots away from climate accountability and clean energy investment, the stakes are high—not just for the environment, but for the nation’s economic competitiveness and the health and safety of its citizens. The coming months will reveal whether the administration’s gamble pays off, or whether, as critics warn, it will leave America behind in the global race for a sustainable future.
