The energy policy debate in the United States has never been more charged, with recent years marked by intense clashes between federal directives, environmental activism, and the evolving needs of investors and industry. At the heart of this storm is the Trump administration’s legacy—a deliberate pivot toward fossil fuels, a controversial nuclear push, and a regulatory environment that has left both fossil fuel and renewable sectors navigating uncharted waters.
During Donald Trump’s presidency from 2017 to 2021, the administration’s energy policies unmistakably favored fossil fuels. According to Shale Magazine, this era was defined by sweeping deregulation, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and the imposition of tariffs on renewable energy components. Executive actions suspended federal permits for wind and solar projects, while domestic oil, gas, and coal production were actively promoted. The numbers tell a striking story: U.S. crude oil output soared from 8.9 million barrels per day in 2017 to a staggering 13.1 million barrels per day by 2020. Natural gas production also saw a spike, rising by over 25% in the same period. By 2022, U.S. fossil-fuel profits had reached an eye-popping $301 billion.
But the story doesn’t end with fossil fuels. The Trump administration’s policies introduced significant headwinds for renewables, but the sector proved surprisingly resilient. Tariffs on solar panels, steel, and aluminum drove up project costs, while regulatory rollbacks like the repeal of the Clean Power Plan created uncertainty for developers. According to Investment News, U.S. renewable energy investments plummeted by 36% in 2025 compared to the previous year—a $205 billion decline widely attributed to policy instability. Yet, despite these setbacks, renewables managed to account for 90% of new electrical capacity additions in 2024, buoyed by declining technology costs and state-level mandates. Solar capacity alone grew by 150% from 2017 to 2021, and wind energy added 30 gigawatts of capacity between 2017 and 2020.
The risk/reward dynamics for investors have shifted dramatically. The fossil fuel sector has benefited from short-term policy support and low-cost reserves, but concerns about long-term demand for oil have created uncertainty. Meanwhile, renewables are increasingly seen as a safer long-term bet, aligning with global energy transition trends and offering both environmental and economic returns. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) under President Biden, which provided $400 billion in subsidies and tax credits, helped sustain renewable growth despite the Trump-era rollbacks. Financial institutions have taken note, with major U.S. banks and hedge funds shifting capital toward renewable energy stocks and diversifying into emerging technologies like green hydrogen and long-duration energy storage.
This evolving landscape has not gone uncontested. The Trump administration’s recent push for a “nuclear renaissance” has drawn fierce criticism from progressive environmental groups. In May 2025, Trump signed several executive orders aimed at cutting red tape and accelerating advancements in nuclear technologies. As reported by Fox News Digital, Trump argued that “abundant energy is a vital national- and economic-security interest” and that nuclear energy, alongside fossil fuels, could “liberate America from dependence on geopolitical rivals.”
However, groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club have been sharply critical of Trump’s nuclear and broader energy agenda. In late July 2025, UCS published a statement lambasting the administration, asserting that “since the Inauguration, the administration has systematically destroyed federal scientific systems.” Their report claimed that Trump’s policies amounted to a “systematic effort to suppress climate science and dismantle actions to address the climate crisis that will increase costs and suffering, particularly for disadvantaged communities, while boosting fossil fuel pollution and profits.”
The backlash has not been limited to policy critiques. According to Fox News Digital, Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, has accused these environmental groups of being “driven by green activists and groups deeply tied to the Democratic Party,” and linked their opposition to Trump’s nuclear plans to a “web of dark money” organizations with connections to prominent Democratic donors and even foreign interests. “You follow the money, you’ll see where it leads. It leads straight to partisan mega-donors, foreign interests, and failed climate crusaders,” Isaac told Fox News Digital. “This isn’t about the environment. It’s about political control over America’s energy future and our energy dominance.”
NTI, for its part, has emphasized its commitment to expanding nuclear capacity globally, aiming to enable more than 50 gigawatts of nuclear capacity annually by the 2030s. A spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the organization “actively supports the rapid expansion of safe, secure, and cost-effective nuclear energy through the Nuclear Scaling Initiative (NSI), in partnership with the Clean Air Task Force and the EFI Foundation.” NTI leaders have notable links to Democratic causes, with CEO Ernest Moniz having served as secretary of energy under President Obama, and other executives making political contributions to Democratic candidates and organizations.
Other groups, including Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace, have a long history of progressive activism. Friends of the Earth has endorsed the Green New Deal, supported Black Lives Matter, and called for defunding the police, while the Sierra Club has similarly backed the Green New Deal and described itself as “committed to being an anti-racist organization.” Greenpeace has been vocal in its criticism of Trump, accusing him of “defying science” and touting its involvement in progressive causes such as the “Vision for Black Lives” platform.
These organizations have received funding from a variety of sources, many of which are linked to left-wing donors. The Tides Foundation, Alliance for Global Justice, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Wyss Foundation, and the New Venture Fund have all been cited as financial backers. Critics argue that this network of funding represents a concerted effort to influence U.S. energy policy for ideological reasons, rather than environmental or scientific ones.
Not everyone agrees with this characterization. A spokesperson for NTI pushed back against allegations of bias, emphasizing the organization’s nonprofit and nonpartisan status. Nevertheless, the polarization is clear: while some see the opposition to Trump’s energy agenda as principled advocacy, others view it as a bid for political and economic control.
Industry voices like Steve Milloy, a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environment Institute and former Trump EPA transition team member, have framed the current moment as “a critical turning point for the future of energy.” Milloy argues, “By championing nuclear power, the President is putting science, technology, and common sense ahead of the outdated, anti-energy green agenda pushed by the Left.” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, is even more blunt, calling the green agenda “a hodgepodge of anti-human activists who have adopted the green agenda as their religion, coupled with megalomaniacs and political operatives exploiting climate issues to push a broader ideological agenda.”
As the U.S. energy sector looks to the future, it faces a landscape shaped by both policy volatility and relentless innovation. The Trump administration’s favoring of fossil fuels and nuclear energy has certainly shifted the conversation, but the underlying momentum of renewables, state-level mandates, and private-sector investment suggests that the energy transition is far from over. For investors, policymakers, and activists alike, the challenge—and opportunity—lies in balancing short-term policy-driven opportunities with the long-term imperatives of sustainability, security, and economic growth.
The debate over America’s energy future is far from settled, and as competing interests continue to clash, the outcome will shape not only the nation’s economy but the planet’s climate trajectory for decades to come.
