In his first month in office, Trump kick-started a new round of "energy revolution" in the United States with swift actions. On the day of his inauguration, he declared a "national energy emergency," marking a dramatic U-turn in energy policy. Tearing up environmental regulations, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, halting subsidies for electric vehicles—this series of moves sent U.S. energy policy into full reverse, leaving the world stunned. Later that month, Trump signed an executive order to establish the National Energy Council, tasked with advancing his "new energy agenda." This "energy revolution," championed under the banner of "America First," raises the question: Is it a "stimulant" to revive the economy or a "political poison" that goes against the tide?

Trump signs executive order. Energy "three-pronged approach": Deregulation, withdrawal, and slashing subsidies! If one were to summarize Trump's "energy revolution" approach in a sentence, it would be: Make traditional energy great again!

Traditional Energy Industry Sees Major Deregulation. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency," primarily aiming to bypass congressional funding restrictions and aggressively push for traditional energy extraction. Shortly after taking office, he signed executive orders lifting all offshore drilling bans imposed by the Biden administration, expedited federal land lease approvals, and even invoked the Defense Production Act to boost energy production. The lengthy permit approval process for drilling, which took days under Biden, was significantly shortened by Trump. Simultaneously, Trump pushed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt more lenient regulatory policies. For instance, he repealed the EPA's emission standards for new power plants, allowing coal-fired plants to operate indefinitely. Overnight, the traditional energy sector in the U.S. seemed to enter another "season of spring blossoms."

A Major Reversal in Clean Energy Policies. Compared to the "booming" traditional energy industry, the clean energy sector in the United States is facing a "chilling downturn." After taking office, Trump launched a sweeping rollback of the Biden administration's clean energy policies, nearly overturning all of Biden's green initiatives. Trump revoked the electric vehicle mandate, scrapped billions of dollars in clean energy subsidies under the *Inflation Reduction Act*, and eliminated tax incentives for electric vehicle purchases. This move caused stock prices of new energy automakers like Tesla to plummet, leaving even the "top dog" Elon Musk feeling helpless. Meanwhile, Trump advocated vigorously revitalizing America's traditional automotive industry and bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. He declared, "We will make cars in America again at a pace nobody thought possible just a few years ago." Additionally, Trump's axe fell on U.S. environmental agencies, with the Environmental Protection Agency's budget slashed by % and key environmental positions, including the Climate Envoy, eliminated.

美国的汽车生产线。国际气候治理大撤退。质疑气候变化是特朗普一贯的立场。早在第一任期，特朗普就作出退出《巴黎协定》的决定，让世界为之震惊。拜登政府上台后，美国重返国际气候治理平台。但此番特朗普卷土重来，就职首日便签署行政令，再次退出《巴黎协定》，脱离了国际气候治理的核心框架。（另见本号文章Why is Trump so determined to withdraw from international groups?）这不仅意味着美国自身将不再遵守减排义务，而且美国也很可能不再向发展中经济体提供气候援助。作为全球第二大碳排放国，美国的“退群”“弃约”行为将导致国际气候治理目标更难实现。美国的行为还容易引发他国效仿，给国际气候治理造成巨大冲击。这种做法的本质就是“美国优先”下的“气候单边主义”，是短视思维和霸道逻辑共同作用的产物。

The "small calculations" behind Trump's major energy moves. Trump vigorously promotes the "energy revolution," primarily calculating "three accounts."

The Economic Calculation. Trump's logic is straightforward and crude: oil prices fall → inflation drops → the Fed cuts rates → the stock market rises → voters smile. Currently, a significant portion of the U.S. economy is directly tied to energy, making lowering oil prices the "least effort" method to control inflation. In Trump's playbook, a drop in oil prices by a dollar could suppress inflation by a certain percentage. Moreover, traditional energy sources have low costs and mature supply chains, capable of quickly boosting employment in the short term—especially effective in the Republican stronghold "oil states." Thus, the revival of traditional energy supply chains (such as fuel-powered automobile manufacturing) is packaged as a patriotic narrative of "saving tens of thousands of jobs."

The Ledger of Hegemony Though the U.S. has already secured its position as the world's top oil and gas producer, Trump's ambitions go beyond that. His goal is to wield energy as a diplomatic bargaining chip, reshaping the global energy power structure and cementing America's dominance as the "energy hegemon." To achieve this, Trump has adopted a dual approach: pressuring Russia while squeezing Europe—forcing OPEC to increase production to suppress oil prices, thereby cutting into Russia's energy revenues, and compelling Europe to replace Russian gas with American LNG, thus tightening his grip on the EU's energy lifeline. On the other hand, Trump has selectively distanced himself from the Middle East, reducing reliance on Saudi oil to free up resources for unwavering support of Israel. His geopolitical strategy of "oil as a weapon" has been executed with remarkable finesse.

Political Calculations. Traditional energy giants are major donors to Trump. According to disclosures by multiple U.S. media outlets, including The Washington Post and Politico, shale oil companies alone contributed over $100 million to Trump's campaign. Viewed in this light, it's no surprise that Trump rolled out aggressive energy policies after taking office. A series of such moves could help him cater to the financial backers of the traditional energy industry and solidify his political standing.

Trump's "Energy Revolution" Faces "Four Major Obstacles" Though Trump's "Energy Revolution" appears to be advancing swiftly and decisively, in reality, it is fraught with challenges and faces significant resistance at every step.

Institutional Resistance. Although Trump's "Energy Revolution" was swiftly implemented through executive orders, it faced multi-dimensional resistance from the U.S. institutional system. On one hand, environmental groups have been relentlessly opposing it. Recently, several U.S. environmental organizations filed lawsuits based on the *National Environmental Policy Act* and the *Clean Air Act*, accusing the new policies of "circumventing environmental impact assessments" and "harming public health." For example, the repeal of the Arctic drilling ban was alleged to violate the statutory procedures of the Federal Land Management Agency. If the new policies are deemed to "abuse emergency powers," they could face unconstitutional rulings. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has adopted a "delaying tactic." In Congress, Democrats have obstructed Trump's requests for fiscal subsidies to oil and gas extraction by controlling the Senate Appropriations Committee. For instance, while the *Defense Production Act* authorizes the president to mobilize industrial capacity, specific funding requires congressional approval—Democrats have refused to approve it, citing concerns over "exacerbating the fiscal deficit."

Capital Resistance. Trump's attempt to use executive power to reverse the laws of the energy market was met with a harsh rebuke from the market. On one hand, the traditional energy industry faces a "production increase paradox." Despite the accelerated release of federal land leases, U.S. shale oil companies show little willingness to ramp up production. In [month/year], U.S. crude oil production is projected to grow by only [X] million barrels per day, far below Trump's proclaimed "million-barrel-level" target. With international oil prices persistently below the breakeven point for shale oil extraction, companies have no incentive to expand capacity. Even more unexpectedly, a risk-averse sentiment has emerged in the financial asset markets tied to traditional energy. Recently, U.S. private equity funds have accelerated the sell-off of assets linked to fossil fuels. In [month/year], merger and acquisition advisory services for the energy sector surged by [X]%. Investors are primarily concerned that "Trump tariffs" combined with "oil price volatility" will heighten uncertainty in returns. A stronger U.S. dollar and elevated Treasury yields have further discouraged capital inflows into the energy sector, while rising financing costs have forced some small and mid-sized oilfield service companies to cut jobs and reduce output. On the other hand, the renewable energy industry is experiencing a "retreat wave." After the cancellation of electric vehicle subsidies, U.S. consumer purchase intent indices plummeted by [X]%, leading automakers like GM and Ford to postpone their electrification investment plans. Shares of battery suppliers such as LG Energy Solution and Samsung SDI even plunged over [X]% in a single day, prompting several companies to suspend plans for U.S. factory construction. The wind power sector has also faced a "policy sudden brake." Following the freeze on federal land lease approvals, [X] ongoing wind projects across the U.S. are at risk of shutdown, prompting project developers to collectively lobby Republican lawmakers for "policy flexibility."

International Resistance. Currently, Trump's "energy nationalism" is far from solidifying America's energy dominance; instead, it is accelerating the realignment of the global energy order. A "soft resistance" has emerged. Despite Trump's demand to withdraw from production cuts by a certain year and month, Saudi Arabia and Russia reached an implicit agreement, committing only to "gradual production increases." The actual daily output increase fell short of the agreed volume by less than a certain percentage. In effect, this move avoided direct confrontation with the U.S. while keeping oil prices above a certain dollar-per-barrel threshold, safeguarding the fiscal balance of both nations. Europe has prepared its "green counterattack" weapon. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will be fully implemented by a certain year, at which point the EU will impose a "carbon tariff" on imported goods. U.S. products, due to their high carbon emission intensity, could face additional annual costs exceeding a certain billion dollars. Meanwhile, the "European Hydrogen Alliance," led by Germany and France, is advancing rapidly, with plans to increase the share of green hydrogen in industrial energy to a certain percentage by a certain year. This will further reduce Europe's reliance on American natural gas. The Middle East has adopted a "Look East" strategy. Saudi Aramco announced a partnership with China's Sinopec to build an integrated refining and petrochemical complex in Liaoning, with the agreement valued at over a certain billion dollars. Additionally, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund has increased investments in Chinese new energy companies such as CATL and BYD, aiming to hedge against U.S. policy risks.

Domestic Resistance. Trump's energy narrative has faced a "dual trial" of science and public opinion at home. On one hand, the year was dubbed "the hottest year on record," with the global average temperature rising by 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels. Americans have personally felt this impact. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that if Trump's policies were fully implemented, global temperature rise could exceed 2°C by the end of the century, triggering irreversible ecological disasters. The World Meteorological Organization released a chart showing the average temperature changes from 1850 to 2016. Research from Harvard University also indicated that relaxing environmental regulations could lead to an additional 36,000 asthma cases and 2,500 premature deaths annually in the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also stated that Trump's new policies would severely impact the health of the American people. On the other hand, local governments in the U.S. have also raised continuous doubts about Trump's "energy revolution." Just two days after Trump's election, California held a special session to discuss "how to protect its progressive policies from the influence of the new administration." The state is also preparing...