Household electricity bills in the United States have surged by 10% since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025, according to a recent report highlighted by Politico. The increase, which has hit family budgets across the country, comes amid a sweeping rollback of clean energy policies and a renewed emphasis on fossil fuels. The shift is part of a broader, contentious debate over the future of American energy, climate action, and the government’s role in both.
Trump’s administration has made no secret of its priorities. Since taking office for a second term, the president has doubled down on support for oil, gas, and coal, while systematically dismantling the incentives and regulations that helped renewable energy sources like wind and solar gain ground. The Department of Energy’s own figures show that in 2024, the U.S. sourced 82% of its energy from hydrocarbons and a mere 3% from renewables—a stark illustration of the policy tilt.
“The momentum of the Obama-Biden policies, for sure that destruction is going to continue in the coming years,” U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Politico on August 19, 2025. “That momentum is pushing prices up right now. And who’s going to get blamed for it? We’re going to get blamed because we’re in office.”
Yet, a July report from the climate thinktank Energy Innovation paints a different picture. The researchers found that the Republicans’ recent spending megabill, signed into law by President Trump, could increase wholesale electricity prices by as much as 74%. The primary culprit: the repeal of Biden-era green energy incentives, which had previously helped keep energy costs in check by boosting cheaper, cleaner sources.
Climate Power Senior Adviser Jesse Lee didn’t mince words, telling reporters: “Republicans are fueling an energy crisis and inflicting a massive utility bill hike on Americans across the country. This is nothing short of a betrayal of their own voters. Families are losing jobs while their bills climb, all because Republicans would rather protect their donors than lower costs.”
Department of Energy spokesperson Ben Dietderich defended the administration’s approach, saying, “While radical activist groups might still be trying to peddle nonsense, the American people elected President Trump to restore commonsense energy policies and that is exactly what we are doing.” He argued that the previous administration’s “reckless green new scam spending” resulted in “higher energy prices and a less reliable grid more prone to blackouts.”
But the policy changes are more than a matter of political rhetoric. Trump’s new tariffs on imported green technology, the halting of federal permits for wind projects, and the reduction of tax credits for both solar and wind have all contributed to a slowdown in renewable energy growth. These moves, coupled with the withdrawal of support for rural clean energy projects, have made the U.S. more dependent on hydrocarbons—a shift that, according to critics, is both costly and environmentally damaging.
Trump’s vision is rooted in a belief that fossil fuels offer more reliable and affordable energy than renewables. He’s been vocal in his skepticism, even calling wind turbines “disgusting” and questioning the environmental benefits of green projects. His administration has also reversed U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, prioritizing national interests over international climate commitments.
This stance has sparked outrage among environmental advocates and ordinary Americans alike. As Earthjustice reported on August 20, 2025, nearly 27,000 supporters have formally opposed a new EPA proposal that would make climate denialism the agency’s official position. The EPA’s plan to declare that climate pollution from power plants and vehicles poses little risk to human health would roll back federal efforts to curb emissions, potentially worsening global heating.
Americans from all walks of life have voiced their concerns, citing the real-world impacts of climate change on their communities. From catastrophic hurricanes in Florida and North Carolina to wildfires in California and droughts in Texas, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. “As a native Floridian who knows firsthand the devastation caused by extreme weather... I strongly oppose your proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding and to eliminate greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles,” wrote a Tampa resident in comments to the EPA.
Health concerns are also front and center. People with asthma and other respiratory conditions fear that looser regulations will worsen air quality. “As a person with asthma, I am deeply concerned that rescinding these greenhouse gas regulations will cause significant increases in health outcomes for everyone who has asthma, COPD, and other lung problems,” wrote a Michigan resident. Others recall the days when smog choked cities like Los Angeles, warning against a return to those conditions.
Economic worries are mounting as well. In Maine, residents point to damage to fisheries, tourism, agriculture, and infrastructure—all linked to more intense storms and rising seas. “That you would propose to weaken the Endangerment Finding flies in the face of your mission to protect human health and the environment,” said a Maine fisherman. The insurance industry, too, is sounding alarms about the financial risks posed by climate-driven disasters.
Scientists are nearly unanimous in their assessment: climate change is real, driven by pollution, and dangerous. The Trump EPA’s stance flies in the face of this consensus. “As a scientist, the evidence for climate change is clear. As a U.S. citizen, I am personally feeling its effects with poor air quality due to Canadian forest fires,” wrote a Wisconsin resident. “The floods and storms that are happening now are all ‘once in a hundred years’ because climate change has its impacts all over the globe.”
Globally, the debate is just as heated. According to ISS Today, Trump’s second term has amplified climate denialism and misinformation, prompting global climate leaders like the European Union to scale back their ambitions, especially amid national security concerns stemming from the Ukraine war. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, once the backbone of international cooperation, is under siege, with progress stalling in the face of consistent attacks.
Yet, there are glimmers of hope. Africa’s first G20 summit, scheduled for later this year, offers a chance for like-minded G7 and BRICS+ nations to forge new partnerships and accelerate climate action. The summit’s priorities include disaster resilience, debt stability for low-income nations, mobilizing finance for just energy transitions, and harnessing critical minerals for sustainable growth. As ISS Today notes, such efforts could help bridge geopolitical divides and set the world on a more sustainable path—if the major players can find common ground.
For now, the future of American and global climate policy remains uncertain. As families struggle with rising bills and communities brace for more extreme weather, the stakes could hardly be higher. The choices made in Washington and beyond will ripple for generations to come.
