By Ghazal Ismandar

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency marks a turning point for U.S. climate and energy policy — one defined by sweeping deregulation, fossil fuel revival, and a deliberate unraveling of the clean energy agenda. With his administration rapidly dismantling key initiatives from the Biden era, the future of America’s green economy — a sector that has emerged as a cornerstone of innovation, investment, and global competitiveness — now faces unprecedented uncertainty. The economic consequences of this reversal are profound, threatening to stall momentum, undercut job creation, and surrender U.S. leadership in the industries of tomorrow.

Trump’s second term has already seen sweeping actions. On his first day in office, he signed Executive Order 14162, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time and terminating all related international climate finance commitments. He also declared a national energy emergency, lifting the moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, ending the federal electric vehicle (EV) mandate, and accelerating fossil fuel infrastructure projects, including offshore drilling and pipeline expansion (Douglas, year).

In line with this agenda, the Department of Energy has canceled clean energy grants, including projects aimed at reducing emissions in low-income housing and expanding EV car-sharing programs (Knickmeyer, 2025). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now staffed with oil, gas, and chemical industry lobbyists, has also granted polluters broad exemptions from rules limiting toxic emissions such as mercury and arsenic (McCormick, 2025). Meanwhile, the administration is reviewing the EPA’s endangerment finding — the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Second Presidency of Donald Trump, 2025).
Trump’s offshore wind policy has been particularly aggressive. In January 2025, he signed an executive order halting new leasing and permitting for offshore wind projects and initiated a review of existing projects like New England Wind and Empire Wind, threatening their financial viability (Empire Wind, 2025).

These actions have already begun to chill investment in the clean energy sector. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, had catalyzed over $200 billion in private investment by early 2024, offering tax credits and incentives for renewable energy, EVs, and domestic manufacturing (International Energy Agency, 2024). However, the Trump administration has paused disbursement of IRA funds and is attempting to claw back climate-related grants, including those from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Second Presidency of Donald Trump, 2025).

Harvard economist James Stock’s warning remains prescient: “Green energy requires long-term certainty. The risk of regulatory whiplash alone can chill investment even if tax credits remain technically available” (Stock, 2025). These policy reversals are already affecting capital-intensive sectors like solar, wind, and battery storage.

Beyond investment, Trump’s second-term agenda is undermining the broader framework of environmental accountability. His administration is targeting ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, with efforts to restrict its use in federal and state pension funds (Knickmeyer, 2025). Meanwhile, the rollback of pollution protections has raised alarms among scientists, including Gene Likens, who warns that weakened emissions standards could lead to the return of acid rain in the U.S. (Milman, 2025).
Internationally, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the slashing of climate finance commitments have weakened global cooperation on climate change. Analysts warn this could trigger a domino effect, encouraging other nations to scale back their own efforts (Setzer, 2025).

While Trump’s supporters argue that deregulation reduces costs and boosts energy independence, the long-term economic tradeoffs are becoming harder to ignore. The global clean energy market is projected to exceed $10 trillion by 2050, and countries like China, the EU, and Canada are aggressively investing to dominate future markets in green hydrogen, carbon capture, and electric transportation (Meyer, 2025). If the U.S. continues to reverse course, it risks ceding leadership in these high-growth sectors.

Trump’s second term is not merely reshaping the trajectory of the green economy — it is actively eroding the policy foundations and market confidence needed for its continued growth. The aggressive dismantling of climate protections, withdrawal from global agreements, and favoring of fossil fuel interests send a clear signal: the United States is retreating from its role as a leader in the clean energy transition. This political reversal may yield short-term economic gains for entrenched industries, but it risks long-term costs that will be far more difficult to recover from — lost investment, forfeited innovation, declining global competitiveness, and mounting environmental damage. In an era where climate leadership defines economic leadership, the choice to step back is not just a policy shift; it is a forfeiture of the future. The green economy, once positioned as a pillar of sustainable growth, now hangs in the balance — not for lack of potential, but for lack of political will.

Sources:
Douglas, Erin. (2025, January 20). Trump Declares Energy Emergency, Pushes LNG and Fossil Fuel Projects. Houston Chronicle. www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/article/trump-energy-emergency-texas-20045343.php. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Empire Wind. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Wind. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Executive Order 14162. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14162. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
U.S. Climate Policy and Investment Outlook. (2024). International Energy Agency. . Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Knickmeyer, Ellen. (2025, March 6). Trump’s DOE Cancels Clean Energy Grants.. apnews.com/article/cf1dff9ee771c566765e9ca3e3599d91. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
McCormick, Erin. (2025, March 27). Trump’s EPA Opens Door for Polluters. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/27/acid-rain-trump-epa. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Meyer, Robinson. (2025). “What Trump’s Return Means for Climate.” Heatmap News. heatmap.news/politics/trump-climate-second-term. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Second Presidency of Donald Trump. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Setzer, Joana. (2025). Global Climate Action in the Age of Trump. USALI Perspectives. usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/implications-of-the-trump-presidency-for-global-climate-action. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Stock, James. (2025). Quoted in Meyer, Robinson. “What Trump’s Return Means for Climate.” Heatmap News. heatmap.news/politics/trump-climate-second-term. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.

By Owen Miller

On Jan. 17, 2025, three days before Inauguration Day, U.S. President Donald Trump released a cryptocurrency called the Trump meme coin, which trades under the ticker symbol $TRUMP. Within two days, its market capitalization soared to $15 billion, making the coin more valuable than companies such as Dollar Tree, Logitech, and Moderna. 

Two days after the successful launch of the $TRUMP coin, the first lady released her own $MELANIA coin. Within a few hours, $MELANIA surpassed a market capitalization of $2 billion. 

These “meme coins” demonstrate a fundamental problem within the cryptocurrency market: The price at which a cryptocurrency trades often has little correlation with its intrinsic value or long-term viability as an investment. Unlike traditional investments that generate cash flow and earnings, cryptocurrencies rely solely on perception and speculation. 

“Meme coins” are generally defined as cryptocurrencies created primarily for entertainment value, with limited real-world utility. Outside of $TRUMP and $MELANIA, notable examples include Dogecoin, which has a market capitalization of $53 billion*, and Fartcoin, which represents a measly $1.5 billion* market capitalization. While these names seem comical, the reality is that billions of dollars are riding on their success. Somewhere, someone is anxiously watching Fartcoin’s price action, hoping for life-changing returns. 

Many investors dismiss meme coins as speculative nonsense while simultaneously viewing more established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, as legitimate assets. Bitcoin, with an immense valuation of $2.1 trillion*, is widely considered to be a safe investment. It is often referred to as “digital gold.” Major companies, like Tesla, and even governments such as El Salvador, hold Bitcoin reserves. 

Bitcoin’s market dominance, however, is built on a paradox. According to popular thought, Bitcoin has real-world utility and is a legitimate store of value. Bitcoin investors claim it is a quick and efficient way to make payments online without a third-party intermediary, such as a bank. Furthermore, since the supply of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million coins, they claim it will act as a natural hedge against inflation. 

However, these two arguments directly contradict each other. One cannot have a means of exchange that is used for everyday purchases but is also meant to be an inflation hedge and speculative asset. With a limited supply, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. 

Over time, the demand for Bitcoin will theoretically go up forever as productivity and production increase in the underlying economy. However, since its supply is finite, this continuous increase in demand for the currency will also push the price of Bitcoin upward forever. In this scenario, holders would be discouraged from spending their coins today, as holding onto them promises greater value tomorrow. This deflationary nature undermines Bitcoin’s legitimacy as a practical medium of exchange. Government-backed currencies, by contrast, incorporate inflation precisely to encourage spending and other economic activity. The way Bitcoin is structured makes it highly unlikely to be used as a medium of exchange in the future. 

So, with Bitcoin’s value being based largely on perception, how is it any different from $TRUMP, $MELANIA or even $FARTCOIN? Fundamentally, these coins share key characteristics. They are built on blockchain technology, have a fixed supply, and can be transacted while being decentralized. Yet, Bitcoin is seen as a legitimate investment, while meme coins are dismissed as speculation. This distinction is steeped in market perception rather than objective utility. If enough people suddenly decide that $FARTCOIN is as legitimate as Bitcoin, who’s to say it couldn’t surpass Bitcoin’s market cap? Maybe, in the future, we will be paying for gas bills in $FARTCOIN and groceries in Bitcoin. 

The reality is that cryptocurrency investing resembles a popularity contest more than a rational market. Bitcoin leads not because of its inherent supremacy but because it has the most credibility with investors. Bitcoin is the modern-day version of tulips, while meme coins are the weeds. Investors flock to the shinier option, reinforcing its dominance, but that dominance lasts only as long as collective perception sustains it. 

As $TRUMP and $MELANIA have demonstrated, the underlying nature of the cryptocurrency market is concerning. There is little inherent value in any cryptocurrency, from $TRUMP to $BTC. $TRUMP had just as much of a right to be worth $15 billion at its peak as Bitcoin has in its current valuation of $2.1 trillion. Ignoring the mania around these coins, future use cases of crypto do not look bright. Buyers of cryptocurrencies are not investors, but rather speculators, hoping to offload their holdings to someone willing to pay more in the future. The release of recent meme coins has painfully proven that cryptocurrency prices are not driven by real-world utility, but merely the shininess of their appearance.

*All pricing information is accurate as of Feb. 9, 2025

By Alina Lee

This summer, Georgia Tech students watched with curiosity as their familiar classroom buildings were retrofitted into elaborate movie sets. Students speculated that production for  “Captain America: Brave New World”, which is set to release in February 2025 and was reportedly being shot in Atlanta, had come to campus. While the film’s identity is unconfirmed, the patriotic super soldier’s story would be just one of many that Marvel has shot in the Peach State. Other films include “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Avengers: Endgame”, two of the highest-grossing films of all time, as well as “Black Panther”, “Ant-Man”, “Spider-Man: Homecoming”, and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2”.

Is Marvel Studios filming at Georgia Tech??
byu/Fireninja1008 inmarvelstudios

What is the secret to Georgia’s MCU connection? The generous tax credit the state gives to production companies. 

The state offers a 20% income tax credit for production companies that spend at least $500,000 on qualified productions in the state. Projects showcasing a “Made in Georgia” logo can earn an additional 10%. Unlike other states, such as California and New York, which also tout generous film tax incentive programs, Georgia does not cap the amount of credit granted, making it particularly attractive to filmmakers.

Thus, it isn’t just the folks at Marvel Studios taking advantage. Since its establishment in 2005, the incentive has brought countless blockbuster films to the state and is responsible for the creation of numerous movie studios, infrastructure projects, tourism business, and thousands of jobs for Georgians, all of which have led to Georgia being dubbed the “Hollywood of the South” or “Y’allywood”. 

In recent years, however, the true extent of these benefits has been a subject of debate, notably between the film industry and state tax auditors. 

A study by Olsberg SPI, commissioned by the Georgia Screen Entertainment Coalition, claims the tax credit generates $6.30 for every dollar spent, contributing $8.55 billion to Georgia’s economy in 2022 and supporting nearly 60,000 jobs. In contrast, a 2023 Georgia State University audit argues the program results in $1 billion in lost state tax revenue annually, predicting only a 19 cent return per dollar in the 2024 fiscal year.

With the growing costs to the state in mind, legislators have attempted to tighten the ability for companies to claim these credits. This year, a bill that would have capped the incentive was ultimately killed in the state Senate. In 2022, a similar bill also failed to pass. 

“As the industry has flourished, so have the associated costs to our state revenues,” said Rep. Clint Crowe, a Republican from Jackson and a supporter of the bill. “It is imperative that we implement measures to safeguard our fiscal stability while preserving the attractiveness of our incentive program.”

Opponents of the 2024 bill had concerns that capping the credit would cause companies to take their business elsewhere.  

“If it’s not broke, don’t try to fix it,” said Rep. Long Tran-D, Dunwoody. “[Georgia’s] not just competing with other states, we’re competing globally, and this industry is rapidly changing.”

In the end, both bills failed to pass, leaving the tax credit program unchanged for now. However, the 2024 bill proposed measures that could have bridged the gap between the film industry and state officials by ensuring more of the credit’s benefits stay within Georgia. Provisions that were outlined in the bill, like requiring crews to include at least 50% Georgia residents, sourcing half of all vendors from Georgia-based companies, or locating production in counties where few movies have been filmed, could have tied the incentive more directly to local economic growth, maximizing its impact for Georgia workers and businesses. In 2020, the state introduced auditing requirements for the credit to improve compliance, but further steps to ensure these benefits remain in the state could add even greater value.

Beyond its measurable economic returns, the film industry has had far-reaching effects on Georgia’s cultural identity. Productions not only bring jobs and investments to the state, but also elevate Georgia’s profile as a hub for talent and innovation. They attract creative professionals, boost tourism, and enhance the state’s reputation on a global scale. This growth has firmly established Georgia as a destination for economic opportunity and creativity.

For now, Georgia’s tax credit program continues to fuel the state’s transformation into a global leader in film production. While debates over its fiscal impact persist, the program has undeniably shaped Georgia’s economy, culture, and reputation. With its doors open to the Marvel universe and beyond, Georgia remains in the spotlight as a creative and economic powerhouse in the industry.

By Dhanesh Amin

Donald Trump’s second term as president will bring a new set of economic policies aimed to address concerns about rising costs, job creation, and the state of American industry. His plan includes sweeping changes across trade, taxation, labor markets, energy, housing, and financial regulation. Here’s a look at what Trump’s administration is proposing for the next four years.

Revamping Trade Policy

Trump has signaled a strong focus on protectionism, aiming to reshape trade relations with a series of tariff increases. One of his first moves will be implementing a 10% tariff on all imports, covering a wide range of goods entering the United States. The goal is to reduce the trade deficit and encourage companies to manufacture more products domestically.

A central part of this trade strategy involves China. Trump plans to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese imports, significantly higher than the tariffs set during his first term. He believes this will pressure businesses to move production back to the U.S. or to other non-Chinese suppliers. Additionally, Trump has indicated his intention to renegotiate existing trade agreements, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), to secure terms he views as more beneficial for American workers and industries.

Tax Cuts and Corporate Policy

Building on the tax reforms of his first term, Trump’s economic plan includes further reductions in the corporate tax rate. He aims to lower the rate from the current 21% down to 15%, to boost U.S. business competitiveness and attract foreign investment.

Trump also wants to extend individual tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire in 2025. This would include keeping the lowered individual income tax rates and the increased standard deduction, which have provided tax relief to many lower income Americans.

For businesses, Trump plans to restore the ability to immediately deduct investments in equipment and research. By doing so, he hopes to encourage companies to reinvest in their operations, leading to increased productivity and innovation.

Immigration Reform and Labor Market Changes

Immigration reform is a key priority in Trump’s second term agenda, with plans to reduce the number of undocumented workers in the United States. Trump has announced a large-scale deportation plan, aimed at removing millions of undocumented immigrants. He argues that this will help open job opportunities for American citizens, particularly in sectors like construction and manufacturing.

In addition, the administration plans to restrict work visas, such as H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, to prioritize hiring American workers. To address potential labor shortages that may arise from these measures, Trump aims to expand vocational training and apprenticeship programs. His goal is to equip American workers with the skills needed for high-demand jobs, particularly in industries like technology and skilled trades.

Boosting the Housing Market

The rising cost of housing remains a significant concern for many Americans, and Trump’s plan seeks to increase the supply of homes by opening up federally protected lands for residential development. By making more land available for construction, the administration aims to help alleviate the housing shortage and make homeownership more accessible.

Trump also intends to reduce federal building regulations, which he believes drive up construction costs and delay new projects. The plan includes providing tax incentives for first-time homebuyers and removing barriers that make it difficult for low-income families to qualify for mortgages.

Energy Policy: Emphasizing Fossil Fuels

Trump’s energy policy centers around increasing domestic production of oil, gas, and coal. The administration plans to expand drilling on federal lands, including areas that were previously off-limits, such as parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. By boosting fossil fuel production, Trump aims to reduce energy costs for consumers and enhance U.S. energy independence.

The administration also plans to roll back a series of environmental regulations that Trump believes are hampering growth in the fossil fuel sector. This includes easing restrictions on methane emissions and reducing the requirements for environmental reviews on new projects.

While the focus is on traditional energy sources, the administration has indicated it will review federal funding for renewable energy initiatives. Trump has expressed skepticism about the economic viability of solar and wind power, suggesting that federal subsidies for these projects will be cut back.

Social Security and Tax Relief for Workers

Trump’s proposed tax relief measures include eliminating federal income taxes on Social Security benefits. This change aims to provide financial relief to retirees, many of whom have seen their living costs rise in recent years. By removing taxes on Social Security payments, the administration hopes to increase the disposable income of seniors.

Additionally, Trump plans to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime pay, targeting workers in industries like hospitality and food service. He believes this will provide much needed relief to low-wage workers who rely on these sources of income.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has not yet released specific details on how it plans to address potential funding shortfalls for Social Security. The removal of taxes on benefits could reduce revenue for the program, which is already facing financial challenges.

Financial Deregulation and Market Reforms

The Trump administration is expected to continue its focus on deregulating financial markets. Trump has called to roll back parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, a 2010 financial reform law aimed at preventing another financial crisis by increasing oversight and regulation of banks and financial institutions. He argued that the regulations are overly burdensome for banks and financial institutions. His goal is to increase lending and support business growth by reducing compliance costs.

Trump has also expressed interest in taking a more favorable stance toward cryptocurrencies. He has hinted at reducing regulatory barriers for digital currencies and blockchain technologies, potentially paving the way for increased innovation in the financial sector.

The administration plans to review Federal Reserve policies concerning interest rates. Trump has advocated to keep interest rates low to support economic growth, even as inflation concerns persist.

Changes in Education and Workforce Development

Education policy under Trump’s second term will emphasize vocational training and skill development. The administration plans to increase funding for trade schools and apprenticeships, aiming to address the skills gap in industries like manufacturing, healthcare and information technology.

Trump has also reaffirmed his commitment to expanding school choice programs, including increased support for charter schools and vouchers. The administration aims to reduce federal oversight of public education, giving more control to state and local governments, with Trump even calling to close the Department of Education.

Healthcare Policy Proposals

In healthcare, Trump has reiterated his desire to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replace it with a system focused on health savings accounts and private market solutions. He plans to expand the availability of private Medicare Advantage plans and increase transparency in hospital pricing, allowing consumers to shop for healthcare services more effectively.

Trump has also promised to introduce a new drug pricing policy aimed at lowering the cost of prescription medications. Specific details have yet to be released, but the administration intends to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to secure lower prices for consumers.

Conclusion

Trump’s second-term economic agenda outlines a series of bold initiatives focused on reducing taxes, increasing domestic production, and reshaping immigration and trade policies. His approach emphasizes deregulation, traditional energy sources, and a shift towards more market-driven solutions in healthcare and education.

The proposed policies aim to stimulate economic growth and address key issues faced by American families, including the rising cost of living and job availability. As these plans are implemented, their impact on the economy will be closely watched, shaping the economic trajectory of the United States for years to come.