U.S. Climate Change Policy During the Trump Administration
This paper examines how the Trump Administration reshaped U.S. climate change policy through a series of deliberate regulatory rollbacks and a withdrawal from international climate commitments. It surveys major policy shifts, including the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the relaxation of fuel efficiency and methane emission standards, and the 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The paper evaluates these actions from multiple perspectives — economic, environmental, and international relations — finding that while certain sectors experienced short-term economic gains, the policies likely increased greenhouse gas emissions and diminished U.S. credibility in global climate governance. The paper also addresses the reduction of U.S. financial contributions to international climate funds and resulting diplomatic consequences.
- Introduction: Overview of Trump's departure from climate commitments
- Overview of Trump Climate Policy: Deregulation approach and its contested outcomes
- Rolling Back Environmental Regulations: CPP repeal, fuel standards, and methane rule reversals
- Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: U.S. exit from the 2015 global climate accord
- Economic Gains vs. Environmental Costs: Short-term fossil fuel growth versus long-term costs
- International Relations Implications: GCF funding cuts, trade policy shifts, diplomatic fallout
- Conclusion: Balanced verdict on a perspective-dependent legacy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper consistently evaluates policy from multiple analytical lenses — economic, environmental, and international relations — giving each perspective fair treatment before drawing balanced conclusions.
- Concrete policy examples (Clean Power Plan repeal, fuel efficiency rollbacks, methane limits, GCF funding withdrawal) ground abstract arguments in specific, citable evidence.
- The conclusion synthesizes all three frameworks without overstating certainty, acknowledging that judgments of "success" are perspective-dependent.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models multi-perspectival policy analysis: it frames the same set of actions as simultaneously beneficial (short-term economic growth) and harmful (increased emissions, weakened international standing), then uses the concept of "common but differentiated responsibilities" to situate U.S. behavior within established norms of international climate finance. This technique — holding competing evaluations in tension rather than collapsing them — is characteristic of strong policy studies writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introductory overview, then provides a general survey of Trump climate policy before drilling into two major policy domains: domestic regulatory rollbacks and the Paris Agreement withdrawal. Two analytical sections follow, examining economic trade-offs and international relations consequences respectively. The conclusion integrates all threads. This funnel-then-analyze structure moves efficiently from description to evaluation.
Introduction
Climate change policy in the United States experienced a significant transformation under the Trump Administration. Departing from the climate-focused actions of its predecessor — including participation in the Paris Agreement — the Trump Administration enacted a series of policy changes aimed at stimulating economic growth, primarily through deregulation and reducing the United States' commitments to international climate agreements. Ultimately, the administration significantly influenced U.S. climate change policy, but its overall impact was marked by a shift away from environmental regulations and international cooperation, widely viewed as detrimental to climate change mitigation efforts.
Overview of Trump Climate Policy
The Trump Administration's approach to climate change policy, which largely manifested as rollbacks of environmental regulations, was a marked departure from prior administrations (Konisky & Woods, 2018). This approach did shape policy in meaningful ways, but the question of its success is largely dependent on the perspective from which one views it. A central theme was deregulation. The administration rolled back many environmental regulations implemented during the Obama era, arguing that these restrictions hampered economic growth and domestic industries, particularly in sectors such as coal, oil, and gas. Notable examples include the decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan — a policy aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants — and the weakening of fuel efficiency standards for automobiles (Arroyo, 2018).
In 2017, President Trump also announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, a global pact to combat climate change, claiming it imposed an unfair economic burden on the U.S. (Zhang et al., 2017). This decision was a clear signal of the administration's disregard for international cooperation on climate change. From the perspective of economic growth and industry deregulation, these policies were argued to be successful (Gruszczynski & Lawrence, 2019). There were instances of short-term economic and job growth in the fossil fuel sector during Trump's term. However, such success comes with an asterisk, as these gains were often accompanied by potential long-term environmental costs.
From an environmental and climate change mitigation perspective, these actions have been viewed as setbacks. The administration's rollbacks of environmental protections likely increased the country's greenhouse gas emissions compared to what they would have been under the prior rules. In terms of international relations, the Trump Administration also moved away from the precedent set by previous administrations with respect to climate policy.
Rolling Back Environmental Regulations
The rollbacks of environmental protections during the Trump administration represented a decisive shift away from climate change mitigation. These actions were intentional, affecting different sectors and regulations, always with the purpose of easing industry requirements with regard to climate policy. A significant focus was on dismantling Obama-era environmental policies, which were often viewed as overly restrictive by Trump's administration.
One of the most significant rollbacks was the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Introduced by President Obama in 2015, the CPP aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels (Keyes et al., 2019). It achieved this by setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions for power plants and providing states with a flexible framework to reduce emissions through measures such as improving heat rates at existing coal-fired power plants and increasing the use of renewable energy. By revoking this plan, the Trump administration effectively removed a major mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the administration worked to relax fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, another significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama administration had previously set ambitious targets for average fuel economy — 54.5 miles per gallon for new vehicles by model year 2025 (Keyes et al., 2019). The Trump administration proposed freezing the standards at the 2020 level of 37 miles per gallon.
The Trump administration also reversed limits on methane emissions — a potent greenhouse gas — from oil and gas operations. It repealed a requirement for companies to monitor and fix methane leaks, along with another rule that prevented the venting and flaring of methane on public and tribal lands (Krupp, 2017).
These rollbacks, and several others enacted during Trump's presidency, likely increased the United States' greenhouse gas emissions compared to what they would have been under prior rules. By loosening or removing regulations on industries such as power generation, transportation, and oil and gas, these policies allowed for greater greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming and related environmental problems.
From an environmental and climate change mitigation perspective, these actions were significant setbacks. While they may have provided short-term economic advantages to certain sectors, they were arguably detrimental to the longer-term goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing the pace of global climate change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Trump Administration undeniably exerted significant influence on climate change policy, both domestically and internationally. From an economic and industry deregulation standpoint, the administration demonstrated success, as reflected in the short-term boosts for certain industries like fossil fuels. These actions echoed the administration's commitment to prioritizing domestic economic concerns and its view of rebalancing the regulatory landscape. Conversely, from an environmental perspective, these policies represented significant setbacks. The administration's rollbacks on critical environmental protections likely increased the country's greenhouse gas emissions compared to projections under prior regulations. The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement not only undermined global climate cooperation but also signified a shift away from the U.S.'s traditionally proactive role in global environmental governance. Furthermore, changes in international trade policies and reductions in financial support for international climate initiatives highlighted a retreat from established principles of international climate finance, reshaping the U.S.'s standing in global climate negotiations. These shifts carry potential long-term implications, creating economic, environmental, and diplomatic ripple effects that continue to reverberate. Therefore, the Trump administration's climate change policies were not without impact, and their ultimate success depends on the lens one chooses to apply.
References
Arroyo, V. (2018). From Paris to Pittsburgh: US state and local leadership in an era of Trump. Geo. Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 433.
Blondeel, M., & Van de Graaf, T. (2018). Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the USA, China, India and Australia. Climatic Change, 150(1–2), 89–101.
Gruszczynski, L., & Lawrence, J. (2019). Trump, international trade and populism. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2018: Populism and International Law, 19–44.
Keyes, A. T., Lambert, K. F., Burtraw, D., Buonocore, J. J., Levy, J. I., & Driscoll, C. T. (2019). The Affordable Clean Energy rule and the impact of emissions rebound on carbon dioxide and criteria air pollutant emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(4), 044018.
Konisky, D. M., & Woods, N. D. (2018). Environmental federalism and the Trump Presidency: A preliminary assessment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 48(3), 345–371.
Krupp, F. (2017). Trump and the environment: What his plans would do. Foreign Affairs, 96(4), 73–82.
Minas, S., & Bowman, B. (2017). International climate finance: Law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Shum, R. Y. (2019). Heliopolitics: The international political economy of solar supply chains. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100390.
Stone, C. D. (2004). Common but differentiated responsibilities in international law. American Journal of International Law, 98(2), 276–301.
Zhang, Y. X., Chao, Q. C., Zheng, Q. H., & Huang, L. (2017). The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4), 213–219.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.