Editor’s note: Due to our publication’s approval process, this article was finalized in advance and may not reflect most recent developments.
Biden’s years in office were marked by the administration’s take on climate action. Two historic pieces of legislation were passed by Congress: the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These laws allocated $144 bn (IRA) and $836 bn (IIJA) in direct spending, with major provisions for clean energy and infrastructure investment.
The IRA, for instance, often called ‘the climate law’, allocated nearly $400 bn for green funding via various mechanisms aimed at both companies and consumers. A key provision of the bill was its support for clean energy adoption through tax credits, grants, and loans. The legislation was estimated to help reduce US climate emissions dramatically—by up to 42% by the decade’s end. Additionally, it spurred a surge in private investment, lowered energy expenditures for a number of households, and created numerous jobs, with Republican-led districts being among the primary beneficiaries. Over the next ten years, total spending from both the public and private sectors driven by the IRA was projected to soar, with the most generous estimates reaching up to $3 tn.
Much of this funding had been obligated as the Biden administration sought to safeguard these resources from the incoming government’s attempts to reverse the policies. However, the effort was not entirely successful—for example, from $50 bn in IRA grants, $32 bn remained vulnerable to being frozen after Biden left office. And on the first day of his second term, Trump moved swiftly.
On January 20, 2025, the US president issued executive orders to pause federal funding across various sectors, from energy to abortion, for a ‘review’. The Biden-era climate programs were affected too: direction was given to federal agencies to pause the disbursement of IRA and IIJA funds. In the days following, clarifications were issued that the pause applies selectively, with clean energy and green infrastructure projects as the primary targets.
The freeze, in general, is argued by many experts to violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, as Congress holds authority over federal spending. Legal challenges quickly followed, as 23 attorneys general filed a lawsuit and two federal judges issued orders to stop the freeze’s implementation. The Trump administration pushed back, placing even more funding on hold. One of the two federal judges, John McConnell, stated that the administration violated the earlier order to resume funding and reiterated his ruling, adding the freeze is “likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.”
Amid ongoing legal disputes, the disruption has already taken its toll, forcing the halt of numerous federally funded projects. Notably, critical wildfire prevention work has been affected. The $20 mn Hazardous Fuels Transportation Assistance program—which facilitates the removal of dead wood from forests—has suspended operations, and the hiring of seasonal firefighters has been disrupted.
Programs aimed to expand access to solar panels and heat pumps for low-income households, efforts to remove lead paint and pipes, monitor pollution, set up EV infrastructure, and more—all have been affected. The sudden funding freeze led to job losses, delays, and increased uncertainty. There are fears that many contractors may now be less inclined to work with the federal government in the future.
“They’ve taken a process that is longstanding, stable and reliable and turned the government into an unreliable business partner,’’ […] Who wants to do business with an individual or entity that doesn’t pay its bills, that doesn’t pay for work already performed and, in some instances, completely ceases communications?’’—commented Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School.
With numerous energy firms scrapping projects, the developments threaten to slow progress across the domestic clean energy sector. Industry executives argue the freeze—combined with the halting of offshore wind approvals and the review of existing leases—increases the risk of an energy crisis and jeopardizes efforts to strengthen US competitiveness on key technologies, including AI. That said, some investment in renewable energy sources is expected to continue due to market forces. Recently, Brookfield, one of the largest renewable asset owners, started aggressively ‘hunting’ for bargains in solar and wind, driven by the belief that fears over Trump’s anti-green agenda may be overblown.
Yet, the halting of IRA and IIJA funding is just one aspect of Trump’s broader ambition to dramatically alter the trajectory of US climate policy. Actions such as exiting the Paris Agreement and eliminating over 70 climate initiatives—from lifting bans on drilling to rescinding climate targets—were undertaken within the first week of his presidency. Soon after, the administration ordered the removal of mentions of climate change from government websites.
Moreover, in addition to the funding freeze, several related institutions were also affected by targeted measures.
The Trump team placed severe restrictions on scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which provides vital climate data and severe weather forecasts. A number of studies were canceled, and there are fears that the workforce might be halved and the budget significantly cut. The actions could impact the quality of forecasts and international scientific cooperation.
“One of the most concerning aspects of this situation is the availability of US datasets for environmental science, particularly in weather forecasting and climate science,” said Nicolas Bousserez, an atmospheric scientist at Copernicus.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly-created agency granted unprecedented power in overhauling government spending, has placed the head of NOAA’s human resources team on administrative leave and eliminated some of its activities. DOGE’s actions have also faced several legal challenges.
Next, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saw key environmental offices dismantled and the agency’s administrator was given a deadline to decide whether to abandon the authority to regulate climate pollution.
The Department of Energy (DOE) had to suspend certain research activities and disband some offices, with reports that Musk’s DOGE had gained access to IT systems. The National Science Foundation, a key supporter of much of US basic and applied research, has been directed to reduce its staff by 25-50% while also facing budget cuts from $9 to $3 bn. Overall, the actions spread shockwaves across the broad scientific community, likely with significant consequences for the climate research environment.
Trump also moved to reverse international commitments. Efforts led by DOGE, to curtail the operations of USAID and other foreign aid programs, disrupted several international climate-related initiatives. For instance, $70 mn in USAID funding became inaccessible in Colombia—money that was designated for conservation and environmental projects, including those focused on deforestation mitigation in the Amazon.
Moreover, the US rescinded $4 bn in U.S. pledges to the UN Green Climate Fund, an initiative focused on assisting developing nations in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Together with exiting the Paris Agreement, this move has deepened the void in global cooperation on climate policy, raising speculation over the potential of other actors, like China, to step in.
Overall, the situation is complex: with legal challenges still unfolding, it is hard to narrow down the scope of Trump’s climate reversal. Moreover, the administration insists that the current funding freeze is temporary, which suggests it might ‘green light’ at least some of the IRA and IIJA funds in the future.
However, what remains clear is that Trump’s uncompromising rhetoric on the issue has already materialized into an aggressive rollback, with significant ramifications for the energy sector, the scientific community, and the federal government’s role in both domestic and international climate policy in general. The strategy reflects his broader governance approach, which seeks consolidation of executive power and regulatory dismantling across multiple sectors. Ultimately, the extent of his success in this area is closely tied to his success in other domains, and the administration’s ability to withstand domestic legal and political resistance.
By Kseniia Sharnina
February 25, 2025
