Introduction
Energy policy has always been central to Donald Trump’s political platform, serving as both a domestic economic engine and a tool of international diplomacy. From his first day in office in 2017 through his ongoing second term, Trump has championed fossil fuels, deregulation, and an “America First” strategy that seeks to leverage energy abundance for economic growth and global influence. His policies have dramatically shaped the U.S. energy landscape, eliciting praise from fossil fuel industries and pushback from environmental advocates.
As James E. Campos, who served as an assistant secretary and director at the Department of Energy during Trump’s first term put it, “The administration was laser-focused on ensuring that energy producers had the freedom to operate without excessive regulatory burdens. That philosophy defined President Trump’s approach from day one.”
This expanded article delves into the key elements of Trump’s energy agenda across his two terms, contrasts them with the Biden administration’s clean energy focus, and examines the broader implications for industry, markets, states, and U.S. global energy leadership. With the Trump administration now several months into its second term, this is a critical moment to evaluate where the country’s energy policy is headed—and how it impacts the energy sector, particularly shale producers.
Trump’s First Term: Fossil Fuel Revival
Donald Trump’s first term as president ushered in a major shift in U.S. energy policy, one defined by the administration’s pursuit of “energy dominance.” This goal centered on increasing domestic production of fossil fuels, scaling back environmental regulations, and prioritizing American energy independence.
“There was an undeniable push to open up federal lands for energy development” explains Campos. “The belief was that America’s natural resources should be fully utilized to strengthen the economy and secure energy independence.”
From the outset, Trump signaled a clear departure from the climate-focused agenda of the Obama era, most notably through his 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This move, widely interpreted as a rebuke of international climate commitments, reinforced the administration’s broader aim of removing perceived barriers to energy development at home.
A series of regulatory rollbacks soon followed. The Trump administration repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, replacing it with the more lenient Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which gave states more flexibility in regulating power plant emissions. It also moved to ease restrictions on methane emissions from oil and gas operations and significantly scaled back the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These efforts were designed to streamline the permitting process and reduce costs for energy producers, particularly in the oil, gas, and coal sectors.
Trump also prioritized the expansion of energy infrastructure. His administration approved major pipeline projects—including the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL (later canceled by the Biden administration)—that were seen as essential to transporting oil and gas from production hubs to market. The administration reopened leasing in areas previously off-limits, including parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and held lease sales on federal lands and offshore areas. This approach was particularly favorable to shale producers, who benefited from faster permitting and expanded access to drilling locations.
The policy environment created by the Trump administration helped extend the historic surge in U.S. energy production that began with the shale boom. Between January 2017 and early 2020—before the COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp drop in production—U.S. crude oil output jumped from 8.9 million barrels per day (bpd) to a record 13.1 million bpd—a 47% increase. Natural gas production also climbed by over 25% during the same period. These gains were supported not just by favorable policy, but also by ongoing technological improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that helped unlock resources in plays like the Permian Basin and the Marcellus Shale.
This rapid growth transformed the United States into the world’s largest producer of both crude oil and natural gas. It also enabled a sharp increase in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, helping to position the U.S. as a global energy supplier. Several new LNG export terminals came online during Trump’s term, boosting capacity and providing key allies—particularly in Europe and Asia—with alternatives to Russian gas.
“I think it was very successful,” notes Campos in discussing Trump’s energy agenda. “For the first time since 1957, we were a net exporter of natural gas. And that was significant, both for the markets and for our national security purposes. For the first time in a very long time we’re energy independent. That was something of a huge accomplishment by the first Trump administration.”
Yet the administration’s approach was not without controversy. Environmental organizations, public health advocates, and many international observers criticized the aggressive rollback of regulations and the de-prioritization of climate policy. Critics argued that while the emphasis on fossil fuel development generated economic benefits in the short term, it came at the expense of longer-term environmental and sustainability goals.
The coal industry, which Trump vocally supported, saw some relief from regulatory pressure, but it did not experience the revival many had hoped for. Market forces—including the growing competitiveness of natural gas and renewables—continued to erode coal’s share of the U.S. power mix. Nonetheless, Trump’s actions to delay coal plant retirements and weaken emissions limits were consistent with his broader strategy to maintain a diversified domestic energy base.
The deregulatory agenda, while popular with many in the oil and gas industry, also raised questions about regulatory certainty and long-term investment planning. By loosening oversight, the administration sought to reduce costs for producers, but it also created the potential for future legal and policy reversals—a dynamic that would come to bear under the Biden administration. This cycle of shifting priorities introduced a new kind of volatility to the energy sector, where investment horizons often span decades.
Ultimately, Trump’s first term left a lasting imprint on the U.S. energy landscape. His policies helped extend a record-setting boom in oil and gas production, expanded export capacity, and repositioned the U.S. as a dominant player in global energy markets. At the same time, they highlighted the enduring tension between economic development and environmental protection—a debate that continues to shape U.S. energy policy to this day.
Biden’s Reversals and the Inflation Reduction Act
Joe Biden’s presidency marked a sharp shift from his predecessor’s energy policies, with climate change and clean energy taking center stage. Early in his term, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement, signaling a renewed U.S. commitment to tackling global warming. This move set the tone for a series of initiatives aimed at reshaping how America produces and consumes energy.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed in August 2022, became the cornerstone of Biden’s energy strategy. As the largest climate legislation in U.S. history, it allocated $369 billion to clean energy programs, aiming to cut emissions, boost domestic manufacturing, and create jobs. The law expanded tax credits for renewable projects like solar, wind, and hydrogen, while incentivizing U.S.-based production to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.
Within two years, utility-scale solar and wind capacity grew by over 25%, and investments poured into energy storage, grid modernization, and clean hydrogen. Domestic manufacturing of solar panels and batteries ramped up, driven by IRA incentives. Yet, challenges persisted. Permitting delays for transmission lines slowed progress, and supply chain disruptions hampered the delivery of key materials. Concerns about grid reliability also emerged as intermittent sources like wind and solar became more prominent.
Critics argued that the rapid shift to renewables contributed to energy price volatility, pointing to high gasoline and electricity costs in 2022. Fossil fuel-producing regions voiced concerns over Biden’s pause on new oil and gas leases and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, citing job losses and economic impacts. Legal battles over leasing policies and regulations became a recurring theme.
Despite these hurdles, Biden’s policies marked a significant recalibration of federal priorities, emphasizing sustainability over fossil fuel expansion. His administration spurred private investment in renewables, electric vehicles, and clean tech startups, laying the groundwork for a long-term energy transition. However, the durability of these efforts remained uncertain, with Trump promising to overturn many of Biden’s initiatives when he returned to office for a second term.
Trump’s Second Term: Regulatory Retrenchment and Energy Abundance
Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has brought with it a sharp pivot back to fossil fuel-centered energy policies and a rapid unraveling of many clean energy initiatives introduced during the Biden administration. Citing high energy prices and growing reliance on foreign imports, Trump declared an energy crisis shortly after taking office. Framing energy production as both an economic imperative and a national security issue, his administration has prioritized deregulation and fossil fuel expansion as cornerstones of its agenda.
One of the first acts of his second term was to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement for the second time. This move underscored his administration’s rejection of international climate commitments in favor of ramping up domestic production of oil, gas, and coal. To that end, Trump issued executive orders aimed at sunsetting existing environmental and energy regulations, weakening the authority of federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and limiting the ability of states to implement their own climate-related policies.
“I believe that President Trump understands as a businessman and an executive how to effectuate the changes that are needed”, Campos explains about the president’s second-term approach. “It’s getting us to a position that we’re not just energy dominant, but we’re energy stable, we’re energy fluid, we’re energy net exporter, we have a lot of natural gas, we have a lot of natural energy resources. And I think it’s exercising our ability as a great nation to push those things forward.”
The rollback of regulations has been swift and extensive, and the administration has been fast-tracking permitting for energy and critical minerals projects on federal lands. Offshore leasing has also expanded, with new blocks opened in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Methane emissions reporting requirements, introduced under the previous administration, have been suspended pending further review. In parallel, references to climate change have been removed from multiple federal agency websites, a move reminiscent of similar actions during Trump’s first term.
Another early target was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a signature piece of legislation from Biden’s presidency. Through executive action, Trump nullified the IRA’s climate reporting rules and suspended key clean energy incentive programs. While some tax credits and provisions remain in place due to their statutory nature, the regulatory scaffolding around them has been weakened, making it more difficult for developers and investors to navigate the approval process for new renewable energy projects.
Trump’s approach also extends beyond domestic energy production. His administration has sought to expand the global reach of American fossil fuels by promoting the construction of natural gas infrastructure in developing countries. Working closely with the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the administration has aligned foreign assistance programs with energy export objectives, positioning U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a cleaner alternative to coal in countries like India, Vietnam, and parts of Africa. The strategy reflects a broader push for global energy dominance, aimed at strengthening U.S. geopolitical leverage and creating new markets for domestic producers.
Back home, Trump has taken aim at state-level environmental regulations. His administration has invoked preemption doctrines and threatened to withhold federal funding from states pursuing independent climate goals. One high-profile example is the Justice Department’s lawsuit against California, challenging its vehicle emissions standards on the grounds that they interfere with the federal government’s national energy strategy. The legal battle is likely to shape the balance of power between federal and state governments on environmental policy in the years to come.
These sweeping changes have, unsurprisingly, sparked strong reactions. Fossil fuel producers have largely welcomed the policy shift. Share prices for major oil and gas companies rallied in the first quarter of 2025, and industry groups have praised the administration for reducing permitting delays and regulatory burdens. But environmental organizations, public health advocates, and many state and local officials have raised alarms about the long-term consequences of abandoning climate action. They argue that Trump’s deregulatory push jeopardizes public health through increased emissions, and erodes progress made in building a cleaner energy system.
Whether one views these changes as a necessary correction or a dangerous reversal, what’s clear is that Trump’s second term represents a decisive reassertion of fossil fuels at the center of American energy policy. The administration’s message is unambiguous: the path to economic strength and global influence, in its view, lies in abundant oil, gas, and coal production—regardless of the environmental trade-offs. For the energy sector, this pivot has created both opportunities and uncertainties. While some industries stand to benefit in the short term, the policy volatility has also raised questions about the long-term stability of U.S. energy strategy and the nation’s commitment to climate leadership on the world stage.
Industry Response and Market Impacts
Donald Trump’s energy policies have left a lasting imprint on the economic, environmental, and geopolitical fabric of the United States. His second term, like his first, has been defined by a decisive tilt toward fossil fuels and a deep rollback of climate-related regulations. Supporters point to the economic upside: increased domestic oil and gas production, lower energy prices, and a stronger position for the U.S. in global energy markets. For the oil and gas sector, especially, Trump’s return has been met with enthusiasm. Share prices for major players like Devon Energy, Occidental Petroleum, and Halliburton rose sharply in early 2025, buoyed by expectations of looser regulations and stronger support for fossil fuel development.
Indeed, upstream investment is rising. Exploration and production (E&P) firms are expanding their drilling budgets, particularly in prolific shale plays like the Permian Basin and Haynesville. Natural gas producers are riding a wave of optimism as liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports surge. New infrastructure projects—like the Golden Pass and Plaquemines LNG Phase 2 terminals—are moving forward, promising to further solidify the U.S. position as a top global LNG supplier. At home, natural gas continues to play a central role as utilities turn to it as a reliable baseload replacement for retiring coal plants, echoing the administration’s emphasis on energy reliability and national security.
This renewed momentum in fossil fuels stands in stark contrast to the situation in the renewable energy sector. Clean energy companies that thrived under the Biden administration are now facing headwinds. Projects that relied heavily on tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are encountering financing delays, and several large-scale solar installations in the Southwest have been paused. The uncertainty surrounding federal support has taken a toll on investor confidence. Battery storage and offshore wind projects, both of which saw strong growth under Biden, are also slowing as policy incentives are scaled back or challenged.
Employment trends reflect this shift. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, fossil fuel jobs—especially in oil and gas extraction—rebounded in early 2025, adding 28,000 positions in the first quarter alone. This marked the strongest quarterly gain for the sector in five years. Meanwhile, solar employment dropped by 8%, largely due to stalled developments and uncertainty around federal tax incentives. Private capital is following the same pattern: EnCap Investments, a prominent private equity firm, recently launched a $1.5 billion fund focused exclusively on unconventional oil plays, signaling renewed investor interest in shale at the expense of emerging clean technologies.
At the state level, the response to Trump’s policies has largely broken along partisan lines. In energy-rich Republican states like Texas and North Dakota, leaders are embracing deregulation, fast-tracking drilling permits, and expanding well sites. These states view Trump’s policies as a green light to double down on fossil fuels. In contrast, blue states such as California and New York remain committed to ambitious climate goals. Both states have filed legal challenges against federal regulatory rollbacks and continue to pursue aggressive targets for clean energy deployment, electric vehicle adoption, and building decarbonization.
Pennsylvania presents a more nuanced case. As a major natural gas producer with a Democratic governor, the state is walking a tightrope. Governor Josh Shapiro has supported initiatives like carbon pricing but also defended natural gas as critical to the state’s economy and energy reliability. This balancing act underscores the regional complexities of energy policy in a politically divided nation.
The resulting patchwork of federal and state policies is fueling a wave of legal disputes. At least six lawsuits are currently underway involving state attorneys general challenging Trump administration actions at agencies like the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. These legal battles reflect broader tensions over federalism and the role states should play in shaping climate and energy strategies.
On the global stage, Trump’s energy diplomacy has emphasized the use of U.S. LNG exports as a strategic tool. During his first term, American LNG exports to Europe and Asia quadrupled, helping position the U.S. as the world’s top LNG exporter by 2023. That trend continues in his second term, with the administration actively pursuing energy trade agreements with countries like Poland and India. These deals are designed to support allied nations’ energy security while expanding markets for U.S. gas producers.
But the policy whiplash between the Biden and Trump administrations has created unease among international partners. European allies have expressed concern about the reliability of U.S. commitments on climate and energy cooperation. At COP29, several European Union ministers openly criticized the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, citing it as a setback for global climate coordination. Some countries argue that American energy policy is subject to abrupt reversals with each election cycle, and that has undermined confidence in the U.S. as a stable energy partner.
Meanwhile, Trump has revived talks with major oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, aiming to coordinate production levels to stabilize global oil prices. These efforts echo the controversial 2020 OPEC+ deal that helped rescue U.S. shale producers during a market collapse. While such agreements may provide short-term price stability, they also raise questions about long-term energy independence and geopolitical alignment.
In sum, Trump’s energy policies have provided a boost to traditional fossil fuel industries, catalyzed private investment in oil and gas, and reshaped the global energy dialogue. The lasting impact of these shifts will depend not just on short-term production metrics or stock prices, but on how the nation balances economic priorities with environmental responsibility and international credibility in the years to come.
Conclusion: A Divided Path Forward
Donald Trump’s energy legacy is defined by an unflinching embrace of fossil fuels, a deregulatory agenda, and a strong preference for energy independence framed through the lens of economic nationalism. Across two non-consecutive terms, Trump has consistently prioritized oil, gas, and coal production, framing these industries as the backbone of American prosperity and security. His administrations have actively dismantled regulations that were seen as obstacles to fossil fuel development, fast-tracked permits for infrastructure projects, and withdrawn from international climate agreements to avoid what he viewed as constraints on U.S. competitiveness.
These policies delivered tangible benefits for traditional energy producers, especially those in the shale sector, which operates on tight margins and values regulatory certainty. In the near term, Trump’s approach contributed to lower energy prices, job creation in fossil fuel regions, and a surge in energy exports that bolstered U.S. leverage in global markets.
“The policies and the directions that we got came from a very caring standpoint,” Campos reflects. “It was caring about America. It was wanting America to be in the best position possible. Sometimes people think America first sounds self-serving or selfish. It’s not, it’s about making sure that we can take care of ourselves before we can effectively take care of others.”
However, this strategy has come at a cost. The rollback of clean energy incentives and environmental protections has sparked concern among climate advocates, international allies, and even within segments of the energy industry itself. While traditional oil and gas producers have welcomed the return to deregulation, emerging clean technology firms face renewed uncertainty. Delays in renewable project approvals, the pause or reversal of tax credits, and diminished support for electrification initiatives have led to a noticeable cooling in the momentum of the U.S. energy transition.
The contrast between Trump’s energy philosophy and that of the Biden administration underscores the broader struggle over the nation’s energy direction. Biden’s push for renewables, climate commitments, and decarbonization initiatives represented a stark pivot from Trump’s fossil fuel-centric playbook. With Trump now back in office, many of Biden’s policies are being reversed, reigniting a fierce debate about the balance between economic growth, energy security, and environmental responsibility.
Trump’s current push for energy abundance reflects a belief that the U.S. should fully exploit its natural resources to remain globally competitive and domestically self-reliant. This vision resonates with many in the traditional energy sector, particularly in regions that depend on fossil fuel jobs and revenues. Yet critics argue that it risks leaving the U.S. behind as other nations push aggressively toward decarbonization and renewable innovation.
As the global energy landscape evolves—driven by shifting consumer demand, technological advancements, and increasing climate pressures—the future of Trump’s energy agenda remains uncertain. Will it usher in a lasting resurgence of fossil fuel dominance, or will it prove to be a temporary high-water mark before market forces and environmental imperatives shift the tide once again?
Ultimately, Trump’s energy legacy will be debated for years to come. Supporters will point to economic revitalization and energy security. Detractors will highlight missed opportunities in climate leadership and clean technology. The long-term implications will depend on how U.S. policy adapts to changing global dynamics, how investors respond to regulatory signals, and how voters weigh economic pragmatism against environmental priorities. In that sense, Trump’s energy agenda is not just a chapter in political history—it’s a live question about the kind of energy future America will pursue.
Stay In The Know with Shale
While the world transitions, you can count on Shale Magazine to bring me the latest intel and insight. Our reporters uncover the sources and stories you need to know in the worlds of finance, sustainability, and investment.
Subscribe to Shale Magazine to stay informed about the happenings that impact your world. Or listen to our critically acclaimed podcast, Energy Mixx Radio Show, where we interview some of the most interesting people, thought leaders, and influencers in the wide world of energy.
