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 Nathan Balis 

During the last two decades, China has outpaced the U.S. in Africa, building a vast economic footprint through trade, investment, and infrastructure. While Beijing’s engagement is slowing, Washington’s response remains tepid — risking a long-term loss of influence on the continent. The Biden administration has taken steps in the right direction, increasing engagement and investment, but these efforts remain insufficient. Meanwhile, a return to the transactional foreign policy of the Trump era — marked by skepticism of long-term development aid and attacks on USAID — would only weaken America’s ability to build lasting economic partnerships on the continent. To compete effectively, the U.S. must commit to sustained, strategic investment that fosters genuine economic growth and stability in Africa.

In 2000, General Secretary Jiang Zemin of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) announced the Go Out policy as a national strategy, incentivizing its enterprises to invest overseas. In 2013, Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeking to establish global trade routes, including in Africa, by investing in infrastructure projects such as railways, ports, highways, and energy facilities. In addition, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has met every three years since 2000, creating three-year action plans that include Chinese pledges of loans, grants, and export credits.

China is now sub-Saharan Africa’s largest bilateral trading partner, with 20% of the region’s exports going to China and about 16% of imports coming from China, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Simultaneously, China has become the largest bilateral creditor to Africa. China’s share of total sub-Saharan African external public debt grew from 2% before 2005 to 17% by 2021, according to the World Bank. Furthermore, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) in the region has surged, accounting for nearly 23% of annual FDI inflows in 2021. Through three principal geoeconomic instruments — trade, investment and credit — China has achieved a staggering level of influence across the continent.

Yet since 2017, Beijing’s economic engagement with Africa has lost momentum. China’s lending to sub-Saharan Africa has dwindled, dropping from nearly $29 billion in 2016 to under $1 billion in 2022—its lowest level in two decades. A struggling real estate sector, demographic pressures, and external shocks like COVID-19 and trade tariffs have all weighed on growth. The slowdown has consequences: the IMF estimates that a one percentage point dip in China’s growth rate drags Africa’s average growth down by 0.25 points within a year. Additionally, China’s shift toward green energy and Russian oil is squeezing African exporters by reshaping trade flows.

This shift presents the U.S. with an opening to expand its economic presence in Africa while promoting better lending standards and financial transparency. Chinese lending to the region increasingly undermines debt transparency, including terms that bar debtors from revealing terms or even the existence of certain loans. Debt transparency is crucial to mitigating risks of armed conflicts, trade fragmentation, inflation, and weak growth. Additionally, China frequently retains the right to demand repayment at any time, enabling its use of funding as diplomatic leverage.

With China retreating from major infrastructure projects, Washington has a prime opportunity to step in. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) has identified three key sectors — health, clean energy, and transportation — where the U.S. could make the most impact. Strategic investments in these sectors would not only support Africa’s development priorities but also reinforce America’s economic leadership by:

1.    Leveraging the Development Finance Corporation (DFC): By offering better financing terms for African governments and businesses, the U.S. would unlock investment in sectors where Chinese engagement has slowed, such as infrastructure.

2.    Strengthening trade partnerships: The African Continental Free Trade Area represents a massive opportunity. Washington should explore ways to align U.S. trade policy with Africa’s regional trade initiatives and diversification objectives more closely.

3.    Developing early-stage pipelines: Unlike China’s state-driven economic model, U.S. firms often struggle to find viable, well-structured projects. Early-stage collaboration with African governments could improve project pipelines and create more opportunities for U.S. private-sector investment.

4.    Scaling up health and humanitarian assistance: Expanding programs in vaccine distribution and medical infrastructure strengthens diplomatic and cultural ties while opening doors for economic collaboration.

President Biden’s recent visit to Angola and his administration’s $600 million railway investment mark a step in the right direction but remain negligible compared to China’s multi-billion-dollar commitments. U.S.-Africa trade, currently valued at $69 billion, still lags far behind China-Africa trade, which stands at $262 billion.

Despite Trump’s late-term embrace of foreign aid, most notably through the creation of the DFC, his recent attacks on USAID and unnecessary antagonization toward the South African government are strategic missteps. The abrupt termination of numerous global programs, including critical health initiatives in countries like Uganda, undermines U.S. soft power and creates a void that Beijing is eager to fill. As China’s influence grows, African nations have increasingly aligned with it on key global issues, such as Taiwan, with 53 of 54 African nations recently signing a joint statement supporting China’s reunification efforts. If Washington hopes to maintain support and credibility in global conflicts, it must recognize that economic leadership in Africa is not just about development; it’s about securing partnerships in an era of intensifying great-power competition.

By Owen Miller

Since Russia’s forceful annexation of Crimea and the advent of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, Western powers have been continuously sanctioning Russian goods and finances. When Russian forces directly invaded Ukraine in a major escalation in 2022, Western governments promised economic sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy. Many government officials called it an economic “nuclear bomb” that would send the entire country into free-fall. Two years later, Ukraine is still fighting for its sovereignty and the Russian economy has not seen the collapse that much of the world has hoped for. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia has had plenty of growth, while Europe is disproportionately suffering from sanctions. With much of their pre-war exports and finances sanctioned, how realistic is Russia’s supposed economic health?

Pre-invasion, energy exports to the European Union and the U.S. were a cornerstone of the Russian economy. Many analysts attributed Russia’s energy export to a form of Dutch disease, where a major part of a country’s economy is dependent on one sector. In 2021, about 20% of Russia’s GDP was attributed to energy exports. At the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global energy prices soared, and Russian companies saw a surge in energy profits as Europe remained dependent on Russian energy. However, these tailwinds were short-lived. Western powers quickly diversified their energy imports away from Russia and sanctioned Russian industries. As a response, Russia turned eastward, shifting its exports to countries such as China, Turkey, and India, who were all ready to take advantage of cheap Russian energy. Despite this strategic realignment to non-Western customers, government revenues from energy exports have still decreased by over 40% since 2022, as the value of the lost European market has not been fully replaced.

In addition to sanctions on energy exports, Russia’s financial system was effectively cut off from the global economy. In 2022, most Russian banks were banned from using the international Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) payment system, and Russia lost access to US dollars and other key global currencies. As a result, Russia has had to turn to conducting international trade in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan. The ruble has experienced high volatility, which is a weight on the Russian economy as consumers and businesses lose faith in Russian financial institutions. This instability, combined with handling trade in uncommonly used currencies, has made Russian imports and domestic business harder to conduct due to higher premiums and costs.

The war and the compounding effects of sanctions have led the Russian government to adopt increasingly unsustainable fiscal policies. At first glance, Russia’s reported GDP growth of 3% for 2024 seems promising, but the vast majority of this growth is a result of massive government military spending. This spending is not conducive to long-term growth and stability. Military spending is chewing into Russia’s emergency reserves and leaving the country vulnerable to an economic downturn. 

Furthermore, military spending is now over a third of all government expenditures, while government revenue from energy and trade is massively down. As a result, the government is running a large deficit and using emergency reserves, such as the National Wealth Fund, to cover for its losses. These are quickly being depleted, and thanks to U.S. and E.U. sanctions, $300 billion in Russian sovereign reserves – nearly half of all Russian reserves pre-war – have been confiscated. Combined, Russian deficit spending and the depletion of their reserves have  led to very high inflation rates. Russian consumers will experience a nearly 7% inflation rate this fiscal year, which is about double the pre-war amount. Russia’s ability to finance itself has been cratered by sanctions, which is detrimental to its long term growth and consumer health.

Sanctions against Russia have fallen short of the impact many had anticipated, but they have succeeded in cutting off large portions of the Russian economy from the rest of the world. Additionally, sanctions have made domestic business operations increasingly difficult. The government’s massive expenditures are propping up the short-term economy, but they are unlikely to translate into sustainable long-term growth. Therefore, despite sanctions not having the magnitude of predicted effect, they are still having a noticeable negative impact on the long-term prospects of the Russian economy.

Sources

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends

https://www.brookings.edu/events/sanctions-on-russia-whats-working-whats-not/

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/RUS/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/E

xport/Partner/by-country/Product/27-27_Fuels

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.

By Nathan Balis

As former President Donald Trump prepares to re-enter the White House in less than three months, United States trade policy appears poised for a dramatic shift toward protectionism. His proposals to set a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 10% to 20% blanket tariff on all imports promise to have severe economic consequences.

The complex, long-term effects of tariffs, compounded by the political rhetoric surrounding them, have fueled controversy. No matter how politically clouded the issue of tariffs has become, data from Trump’s 2018 tariffs – maintained by President Biden – shows they have had net negative effects on the domestic economy. 

While Trump’s tariffs may have provided short-term employment boosts in select industries, the long-term economic costs are steep: an estimated 142,000 jobs lost in downstream sectors, $625 per household in higher costs, a 0.1% reduction in capital stock, and a 0.2% hit to GDP. Combined, these policies amount to an $80 billion annual tax on Americans according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank. 

President-elect Trump’s plans for his second term are projected be more extreme, including hiking taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrinking employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. These values don’t reflect the total costs associated with retaliatory measures and a global trade war.

Indeed, tariffs are hard to justify on economic grounds alone. They must offer clear strategic value. They may, however, be warranted when national security is at risk, as outlined in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

For instance, tariffs may be justified to reshore critical industries vital to U.S. defense and technology. The pandemic’s disruption of global supply chains has highlighted the need to reduce reliance on adversarial nations.

However, imposing harsh tariffs on key U.S. allies, such as South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France, risks undermining our nation’s alliances, which are our most vital foreign policy asset. This is of ever-increasing relevance in a world already destabilized by ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as a growing global challenge to U.S. power and democracy posed by authoritarian regimes.

Rather than relying on broad tariffs, United States trade policy should prioritize reshoring critical industries – such as semiconductor manufacturing – not only to the U.S. mainland, but also to allied nations with established infrastructure. This approach makes economic sense. For instance, South Korea, a key ally with a strong semiconductor industry, can absorb production more efficiently than newly built factories in the U.S. While the CHIPS and Science Act is a positive step, it cannot overcome the U.S. shortage of skilled labor needed to scale up advanced chip production. More importantly, reshoring industries to close allies strengthens U.S. alliances by deepening economic ties. The relocation of key supply chains to trusted partners offers the U.S. a more sustainable solution than unilateral tariffs, which risk isolating essential allies.

With global economic and geopolitical challenges mounting, U.S. trade policy will define its resilience. While tariffs carry economic costs, when applied strategically, they can enhance national security by protecting key supply chains and reinforcing alliances. The current steel tariffs are a step forward but should be fine-tuned through closer collaboration with Japan, a key U.S. ally and the world’s third-largest steel producer. By contrast, high tariffs on washing machines lack economic justification. In a world where alliances are as vital to security as domestic economic strength, the U.S. must craft trade policies with caution and foresight.