President Trump’s 10% universal tariff, with some countries facing much higher rates, is causing chaos for U.S. clean energy companies that rely on imported components like solar panels and batteries.
Analysts say countries destabilized by these tariffs may move faster toward building up renewable energy for security, while the U.S. faces delays and economic uncertainty.
Energy leaders expect fossil fuels to grow more slowly, with long-term momentum remaining for nuclear and renewables, driven less by climate goals than by geopolitical risk.
Key quote:
“We’ll all be poorer for it. The planet will be hotter for it.”
— Gernot Wagner, Columbia University economist
Why this matters:
The latest wave of tariffs from the Trump administration is adding fresh turbulence to global energy markets. While pitched as a move to protect U.S. manufacturing, these trade barriers are hitting renewable energy developers where it hurts: in the wallet. Higher import costs for renewable components mean slower timelines for clean energy projects and greater financial uncertainty for the companies behind them. The timing couldn’t be worse, as many countries are banking on solar and battery storage to wean off fossil fuels.
Rising geopolitical tensions are also pushing governments to view energy through the lens of national security. In the short term, the U.S. may lag behind, as tariffs throttle progress and feed skepticism among investors. What’s unfolding is less a coordinated global clean energy push, and more a fragmented, geopolitical scramble for control over future power sources.
President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders last week to repeal longstanding energy and environmental regulations, bypassing public comment and triggering legal pushback.
Trump’s executive orders target regulations on energy production, endangered species protections, and appliance efficiency standards, calling for many to be “sunsetted” or repealed outright.
The orders cite Supreme Court rulings as justification for skipping the legally required public comment process, relying instead on the rarely used “good cause” exemption.
Legal experts and former officials argue the moves are unlawful, predicting swift court challenges and calling the regulatory strategy chaotic and destabilizing.
Key quote:
“Congress enacted the notice and comment process to ensure that the public has a chance to weigh in on the decisions that the government is making. It is a legally required process and I can not imagine an end run around it will stand up in court.”
— Todd Phillips, assistant professor of law, Georgia State University
Why this matters:
As President Trump moves to dismantle major environmental protections, critics warn that the process, not just the policy, is unraveling. For decades, laws like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act were designed with transparency at their core, requiring agencies to seek public input, weigh scientific evidence, and justify decisions in plain view. But the Trump administration is increasingly bypassing those steps, issuing rollbacks through executive action with little public notice or comment. What makes these changes especially destabilizing is that they’re landing in agencies already under strain. Staffing cuts, retirements, and leadership vacancies have hollowed out federal departments like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior, leaving them less equipped to manage sweeping policy reversals. If these tactics are upheld by the courts, they could redefine how environmental governance works — and who gets a say in it.
Municipal leaders across Canada are urging federal parties to prioritize green infrastructure and disaster resilience in the upcoming election, warning that expanding fossil fuel projects will deepen the climate crisis.
A coalition of 128 mayors, deputy mayors, and local officials signed an open letter demanding a national electric grid, high-speed rail, green affordable housing, and a climate disaster strategy.
The letter criticizes proposed pipeline expansions, arguing they harm Indigenous sovereignty and increase climate-related disasters, while offering few long-term economic benefits.
Communities like Jasper and Montreal, which faced devastating wildfires and floods last year, say they need federal leadership to help them rebuild stronger and adapt to worsening extreme weather.
Key quote:
"Let’s be honest: New pipelines require massive public handouts, trample on Indigenous sovereignty and mean more climate disasters hitting our cities and towns in years to come."
— Open letter signed by 128 municipal leaders to Canada's five main federal party leaders
Why this matters:
While climate disasters become routine on the ground, federal debates in Ottawa often remain fixated on pipelines and international trade — decisions that prioritize fossil fuel infrastructure even as local officials warn that their cities aren’t ready for the next crisis. Across provinces, municipal leaders are urgently calling for investments that serve a dual purpose: cutting emissions while shielding communities from the very climate impacts fossil fuel dependence has helped unleash. That means more spending on flood defenses, affordable housing built to withstand heatwaves, and equitable access to clean energy. Local governments increasingly frame public safety, environmental justice, and economic resilience as interconnected.
Millions of Americans may face sweltering conditions this summer without access to federal cooling assistance,after the Trump administration laid off staff who managed a critical energy aid program for low-income households.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a federal program that helps low-income households afford heating and cooling, is in jeopardy after the Department of Health and Human Services laid off staff overseeing the program.
Although Congress approved $4.1 billion for LIHEAP this year, $378 million remains unspent because there’s no staff to distribute the funds; at least 10,000 employees were laid off in early April, including the LIHEAP team.
As heatwaves become more frequent and severe, states like Arizona, Texas, and Washington rely heavily on LIHEAP to support year-round cooling needs.
Key quote:
“If LIHEAP were to disappear, people would die in their homes. That’s the most critical issue. It saves people.”
— Katrina Metzler, executive director of the National Energy and Utility Affordability Coalition
Why this matters:
As global temperatures rise, heat is quickly becoming the deadliest form of extreme weather in the United States, and cooling assistance can mean the difference between life and death. Yet LIHEAP is being hobbled not by a lack of funding — Congress has already allocated money — but by a shortage of administrative staff to distribute it in the wake of staff cuts. As local agencies struggle to process applications or even open cooling centers in time for record-breaking early-season heat waves, the stakes are clear: Public health protections are lagging behind the realities of a warming world, and the United States' fragmented response to climate change is leaving vulnerable communities exposed.
A public relations firm working with the meat and dairy industry orchestrated an aggressive media campaign to discredit the landmark 2019 EAT-Lancet report, documents reviewed by DeSmog reveal.
The EAT-Lancet report, launched in 2019, urged a 50% cut in global red meat consumption to protect climate and health, but was quickly met with an orchestrated backlash.
A confidential document reviewed by DeSmog shows PR firm Red Flag helped seed opposition by briefing journalists, influencers, and think tanks to portray the science as radical and elitist.
Red Flag’s campaign was likely conducted on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a coalition with ties to industry giants like Cargill and Smithfield, and involved high-reach social media and press strategies.
Key quote:
“Red Flag turned EAT-Lancet into a culture war issue. Instead of having nuanced conversations about the data, Red Flag takes us back to mud slinging.”
— Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami
Why this matters:
The backlash against the EAT-Lancet report — a global call for a “planetary health diet” heavy on plants and light on red meat — shows how powerful industries can turn science into a political battleground. Though grounded in peer-reviewed research linking food systems to climate change and public health, the report was met with fierce resistance from meat and agribusiness interests. These groups used familiar tactics: discrediting scientists, framing dietary guidance as a threat to personal freedom, and promoting disinformation that painted the report as elitist or ideological. The meat industry, in particular, has relied on deep pockets and PR muscle to obscure its role in contributing over 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while sidestepping its impact on biodiversity loss, deforestation, and water pollution.
A leading climate activist group in the Netherlands is suspending its shareholder push against oil companies after waning investor support and rising political pressure in the U.S.
Dutch activist group Follow This will not file climate resolutions at oil company AGMs this year for the first time since 2016, citing political and legal backlash.
U.S. states have sued major investors over climate initiatives, and federal regulators recently dropped proposed rules on climate-related financial disclosures.
Despite earlier success — such as a 60% shareholder vote backing emissions cuts at Chevron in 2021 — recent investor support for such efforts has plateaued at around 20%.
Key quote:
“Big oil can make or break the Paris climate agreement. Their shareholders have only one formal power: the power of the vote. It’s time for more investors to exercise their vote.”
— Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This
Why this matters:
The once-promising strategy of using shareholder activism to nudge oil giants toward climate accountability is now facing a sobering backlash. In recent years, investor-backed climate resolutions have managed to force major players like Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil to publicly commit to emission reduction goals, even if those promises were non-binding. But the momentum behind these campaigns is faltering amid growing political pushback, particularly in the U.S., where Republican-controlled states have begun punishing financial firms for pursuing ESG — environmental, social, and governance — agendas. This politicization has had a chilling effect on institutional investors, who now fear retaliation for aligning too closely with climate goals.
France’s newest high-speed train has captured global attention for its sleek design and energy efficiency, fueling questions about why the U.S. still struggles to build similar rail infrastructure.
France’s fifth-generation TGV Inoui will begin service in 2026 with 20% more energy efficiency, upgraded accessibility features, and design flourishes that have charmed international audiences.
In contrast, the U.S. has limited high-speed rail, with Amtrak’s Acela barely meeting the threshold and new projects like California’s public initiative facing delays, underfunding, and political headwinds.
A private venture, Brightline West, may offer a breakthrough, with plans for a 200 mph line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, supported by federal funding and expected to open by the 2028 Olympics.
Key quote:
“The way Amtrak is structured, it is charged with doing way too much with way too little.”
— Rick Harnish, executive director and co-founder of the High Speed Rail Alliance
Why this matters:
High-speed rail offers a cleaner, faster alternative to driving or flying, with the potential to cut carbon emissions dramatically. Yet the U.S. remains far behind other industrialized nations in building such infrastructure, constrained by politics, underinvestment, and land-use challenges. France’s TGV and similar systems in China and Japan highlight what’s possible with sustained public support and planning. As transportation accounts for a major share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, expanding high-speed rail could ease highway congestion, reduce air pollution, and reshape intercity travel. Without momentum, however, the country risks a less efficient, more carbon-intensive transport future.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
