In a political climate charged with energy debates, the Trump administration’s second term has drawn sharp scrutiny for its deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and its aggressive shift away from climate-focused policies. According to a report released on October 15, 2025, by watchdog groups Public Citizen and the Revolving Door Project, a striking 43 out of 111 nominees and appointees to key environmental and energy policy positions have direct connections to oil, gas, and mining interests. The findings, first reported by Inside Climate News, paint a picture of an administration that is not only unapologetically pro-fossil fuel but also actively reshaping federal energy policy to favor traditional energy sectors at the expense of renewables.
The numbers are telling. Of 37 nominees to the Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring Senate confirmation, 25 had ties to polluting industries. The report highlights the administration’s preference for individuals with backgrounds in fossil fuels, including high-level appointments like Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, as well as lesser-known figures such as Audrey Robertson, a former fracking executive tapped to lead the DOE’s efficiency and renewable energy office.
“The officials running Trump’s second administration, as well as Trump himself, have been far swifter and more aggressive in enacting favors for allies in the fossil fuel and mining industries,” wrote report authors Alan Zibel of Public Citizen and Toni Aguilar Rosenthal of the Revolving Door Project. “They have also set in motion an avalanche of attacks on Trump’s perceived enemies and the industries he disfavors, including renewable energy.”
The administration’s legislative centerpiece, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, has dramatically increased lease sales for oil and gas drilling, opening up millions of acres of federal land for mining. At the same time, the law has hastened the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects—moves that industry insiders say have fundamentally changed the landscape for clean energy development in the United States.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended the administration’s approach, stating, “President Trump was elected with an overwhelming mandate to ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ and unleash America’s energy potential. It’s totally logical that his energy nominees would align with the agenda the President was elected to implement and have a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.”
For renewable energy companies hoping to survive under this new regime, there’s a clear message: be American, and don’t rely on government money. Jarrod Agen, executive director of the White House National Energy Dominance Council and a top adviser to President Trump, made the administration’s stance plain at Semafor’s World Economy Summit. “It can’t be subsidized by the US taxpayer—the president has been 100% clear on that. And we don’t want it reliant on foreign sources like China,” Agen said. “If you have American companies, and you’re not reliant on US taxpayers, that’s the hurdle to get over.”
This policy shift comes as many components of renewable energy technologies are manufactured overseas, especially in China. While wind and solar remain among the cheapest and fastest ways to add capacity to the grid in many regions, the Trump administration’s emphasis on domestic production and energy security has led to reduced federal subsidies for clean energy, tighter requirements, and a fast-tracking of fossil fuel projects. The administration has also rolled back several National Environmental Policy Act requirements for climate impact analyses and public comments, further streamlining the approval process for pipelines and refineries.
“That’s why we’ve changed permitting. That’s why we’ve changed some of the way we’re looking at funding,” Agen explained. The National Energy Dominance Council now plays a central role in liaising between agencies to get fossil fuel infrastructure approved more quickly, shifting funding priorities away from reducing greenhouse gases and toward bolstering domestic energy production.
The fossil fuel industry’s influence is not just political—it’s financial. In the first half of 2025, oil and gas companies spent more than $70 million lobbying the federal government, according to data from OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. Watchdog groups note that this figure, while substantial, is slightly below the pace of 2024, suggesting that the industry hasn’t needed to lobby as aggressively to achieve its policy goals under the current administration.
Chris Wright, the new Energy Secretary and founder of Liberty Energy, a Denver-based fracking company, exemplifies the administration’s philosophy. Under his leadership, the DOE commissioned a report that downplayed the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Wright argued in a July guest article for The Economist that climate change should be viewed “not an existential crisis but a real, physical phenomenon that is a by-product of progress.” Speaking to Inside Climate News, Wright said, “The largest driver of reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, by far, roughly 60 percent, has been natural gas displacing coal in the power sector.” He went on, “Since fossil fuels, or hydrocarbons, as I call them, came into the world, human life expectancy has more than doubled. Wealth per person around the world has grown about 16 fold. Climate change is a real thing. But from what we see as the downsides, are they remotely close to the upsides? I don’t even think they’re in the same ZIP code.”
However, climate scientists and environmental groups have pushed back, noting that while natural gas does produce less carbon dioxide than coal, methane leaks during extraction and transportation may erase its climate benefits. MIT professor Desirée Plata has pointed out that if methane emissions are at the high end of estimates, natural gas may be no cleaner than coal.
Other key appointments have also raised eyebrows. Audrey Robertson, a former fracking executive with no apparent experience in alternative energy, was nominated to lead the DOE’s renewable energy office. She has agreed to sell her stock in Liberty Energy and recuse herself from related matters, but environmental advocates remain wary. Meanwhile, Aaron Szabo, assistant administrator at the EPA, previously represented fossil fuel clients such as the American Petroleum Institute and played a role in weakening air quality rules during Trump’s first term. The EPA has defended Szabo, stating he works with the agency’s Ethics Office to ensure all obligations are met.
The administration’s pro-industry stance extends to pipeline safety as well. Ben Kochman, now deputy administrator at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), previously served as director of pipeline safety policy for a major industry group. In June, PHMSA announced changes to limit “enhanced penalties” for pipeline violations. Kochman justified the move, saying, “We are ensuring due process and putting safety front and center.”
Beyond industry insiders, the administration has welcomed the influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the America First Policy Institute, both funded by oil billionaire Tim Dunn. These organizations have promoted climate skepticism and challenged renewable energy projects, including a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project. While the case was dismissed, efforts to block or delay renewable energy initiatives continue.
Critics argue that these moves reflect a return to what Toni Aguilar Rosenthal of the Revolving Door Project calls “the tried and true offensive model of climate denialism.” The Texas Public Policy Foundation, for example, is known for publishing articles that dispute established climate science and mock concerns like “climate anxiety.”
As the administration doubles down on fossil fuels and reshapes the nation’s energy priorities, the debate over America’s energy future is far from settled. For now, the balance of power has shifted, and the consequences—both economic and environmental—are becoming clearer by the day.
