Trump’s Energy Revolution Is Great. It’s Also Fragile

T he first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have seen a dramatic transformation of America’s policies on energy and the environment. On his first day in office, the president signed the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order to promote the domestic development of oil and natural gas, eliminate electric vehicle mandates, and revoke many of President Joe Biden’s executive orders. While there is undeniable progress, much of it is fragile and in danger of being rescinded by a future president.

Without a coherent strategy to change how energy and environmental policies are made, conservatives lock themselves in a game of whack-a-mole, constantly trying to undo the big-government programs put in place by the environmentalist left. The Trump administration can change that.

President Trump should set a goal that, by next Earth Day — April 22, 2026 — he will have fundamentally changed our energy and environmental policies by taking power out of the hands of the federal government and giving it to individuals and local communities. If he succeeds, national policy would be far more effective in helping to provide reliable energy and protecting the natural world.

Achieving this would require three steps.

The first step would be to undo the massive, and wasteful, spending of the Biden years. The subsidies of the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have not been repealed, and a new study shows that they will cost up to $2 trillion over the next decade. These subsidies continue to steer our energy policy toward the priorities of the last administration — and toward power generation that is expensive and unreliable.

Second, we need to make electricity prices more transparent to create accountability. Politicians and bureaucracies have been able to push their energy agenda in part because its costs are hidden. When policies increase the price of gasoline, for example, the public sees it immediately. But electricity rates are hard to understand. The most common reason people call utilities is that they don’t understand their bill. That confusion makes it hard to hold politicians accountable for bad policies, allowing them to blame utilities, Big Oil, climate change, and a range of other causes. This has to change. Smart thermostats and other technologies can show families exactly what they are paying for electricity and encourage them to save by making simple changes, such as drying clothes during the day rather than in the evening. Right now, even if families change how they use electricity, they would likely see no direct benefit because of our outdated system of electricity rates. Once families have information about the cost of electricity, however, and start to save money, they won’t want to give that power back. And if future administrations enact foolish policies, people would be able to see the impact. This wouldn’t eliminate the role of policy, but it would bring consumers into the discussion in a way they simply aren’t right now.

Third, while most of the focus of regulatory reform has been on large new projects, such as nuclear plants and transmission lines, more attention should be paid to local communities. They should be given more control to address environmental problems. Many of the best ways to reduce pollution and protect wildlife can only be realized at the local level. Collaborative efforts in local communities are also more respectful of property rights. Take, for example, the recent eradication of the “murder hornet” in Washington State. From the beginning, the effort focused on engaging beekeepers and the public to create a network of traps to locate potential nests. Rather than spend millions on studies and new bureaucracies — the standard approach to environmental issues — the state worked with the public. One private trap captured a hornet, which was then tagged with a small transmitter developed by a researcher at the University of Washington. By following the hornet back to its nest, state agencies were able to destroy it and prevent the spread of the species. When time was critical and the risk was high, the standard bureaucratic process was set aside. That is a telling admission. Even state agencies recognized that the strategy with the highest chance of success involved bottom-up efforts, not top-down government mandates.

This isn’t the only example of the effectiveness of empowering private efforts. In Montana, the Property and Environment Research Center has created an “innovation lab” to introduce property rights to address environmental problems. For example, it created a fund to compensate ranchers when elk transmit brucellosis to their cattle. The program creates an incentive for ranchers to preserve the habitat needed by the elk while recognizing the potential costs. It is the opposite of current regulation that pits private landowners against wildlife. Research shows that conservation projects run by local organizations, rather than by central governments, are far more effective at achieving conservation goals and avoiding negative consequences. As long as federal policy sees private landowners as the enemy, however, such effective solutions will be hard to implement.

Taking these steps would achieve several important goals. First, it would make it difficult for future administrations to undo these changes and recentralize energy policy. Second, it would reduce wasteful spending: Repealing the subsidies of the IRA could reduce spending by as much as DOGE has done so far every year. And, third, we would be more effective at solving environmental problems.

The 1970s-era big-government approach to environmental policy is failing, and we need a more dynamic and innovative mind-set. For far too long, environmental policy has been neglected by Republicans and conservatives. If the Trump administration takes these steps, the progress it made in the first 100 days will pale in comparison to its long-term legacy of returning power to the people and enshrining a better way to effectively care for the planet.