The ongoing debate over environmental policies in the United States has gained significant traction in recent years, especially during the transition between the Trump and Biden administrations. This also includes the recent transition from Biden back to Trump.
Each of these administrations have drastically different approaches to environmental issues, which have a profound impact on climate change, public health, and national policies related to biodiversity and energy production.
In this article, we dive into the environmental policies of both presidents, and the current situation we find ourselves in. We’ll be examining the backward steps Trump has taken from Biden’s policies and the regulatory changes he has made.
We’ll also explore how their environmental policies shaped not only the future of the U.S. but also its standing in the global community. Let’s start with the man who was recently named “America’s first climate President,” Joe Biden.
Contents
Biden Administration’s Environmental Policies
One of President Biden’s first significant actions upon taking office was to rejoin the Paris Agreement, an international treaty focused on climate change mitigation. Donald Trump had removed the U.S. from the agreement during his first term.
Biden’s move symbolized a renewed commitment to global cooperation in combating climate change and restoring the role of the U.S. as a leader in environmental advocacy.
The rejoining of the Paris Agreement signified a shift in policy direction, emphasizing the need to limit rising global temperatures and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. committed to ambitious targets aimed at reducing emissions by at least 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels.
This commitment set the stage for a more sustainable future and encouraged other nations to enhance their climate targets, creating an environment of collective action against climate challenges. Collective action is the only way to combat a crisis that affects the entire planet.
The Biden administration also focused on strengthening the Clean Air Act, seeking to enforce stricter air quality standards. Enhanced regulations were designed to reduce pollutants that contribute to respiratory diseases and environmental degradation.
By revisiting and expanding the regulations established under this act, Biden aimed to safeguard public health while addressing issues such as smog, ozone levels, and particulate matter.
Investments in Renewable Energy
Investments in renewable energy were at the forefront of Biden’s environmental policies. His administration had proposed a comprehensive infrastructure plan that included substantial funding for solar, wind, and other renewable energy projects. The Biden Administration was pushing for significant investments in clean transportation and energy-efficient infrastructure. This included funding to expand the charging station infrastructure required by electric vehicles.
The country currently doesn’t have the charging infrastructure required for a move to all electric vehicles.
By promoting electric vehicles and renewable energy sources, Biden’s policies looked to not only improve air quality but also stimulate economic growth through green jobs and innovation in technology.
These investments were pivotal in transitioning the country away from fossil fuels, aiming for a carbon-free power sector by 2035.
By prioritizing clean energy, the Biden Administration was not only addressing climate change but also creating opportunities for economic growth. The focus on renewables was intended to generate millions of high-quality jobs while ensuring energy independence and resilience against future crises.
Protecting National Parks and Wildlife
Another aspect of Biden’s environmental policy was the protection of national parks and wildlife. The administration implemented measures to restore protections for national monuments and increase funding for conservation efforts.
The goal was not only to preserve these natural spaces but also to enhance biodiversity and tackle the ongoing challenges created by climate change.
By bolstering conservation efforts, Biden sought to ensure that future generations could enjoy the natural beauty and ecological diversity of the United States.
His commitment to protecting natural habitats underscored the importance of environmental stewardship and recognized the intrinsic value of preserving wildlife and ecosystems.
Trump Administration’s Rollbacks/Lack of Environmental Policies
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
In stark contrast to the Biden Administration, President Trump initiated the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement for the first time in 2017, arguing that it imposed unfair economic burdens on the country.
This decision marked a significant retreat from global climate leadership, signaling to the world that the U.S. was stepping back from its responsibility to combat climate change.
It was only fitting that President Trump would again remove us from the Agreement on the first day of his second term.
Elections have consequences. Biden made unprecedented leaps forward in combating climate change, and we knew that by electing Donald Trump it would mean a halt to progress and a reversal of every step forward taken by President Biden.
The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has lasting implications for international relations. It undermines global efforts to curb emissions and prompts other nations to reassess their commitments and strategies for addressing climate-related issues.
Trump’s stance against the Paris Agreement reflects a broader skepticism toward environmental agreements with the global community. (“America first!”)
Catering to Fossil Fuel Companies
Along with removing the country from the Paris Agreement again this term, President Trump also declared an “energy emergency” citing “high demand for energy and natural resources to power the next generation of technology” as part of the rationale behind the emergency declaration.
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order called “Unleashing American Energy.”
The order directs agencies to consider eliminating the social cost of carbon calculations from all federal permitting and regulatory decisions. The order also asks agencies to reconsider the Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” concerning the harms of greenhouse gas emissions, which undermines its authority to regulate emissions.
“The calculation of the ‘social cost of carbon’ is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation,” the order reads. “Its abuse arbitrarily slows regulatory decisions and, by rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive, encourages a greater human impact on the environment by affording less efficient foreign energy producers a greater share of the global energy and natural resource market.”
By dismantling regulations aimed at reducing emissions, the Trump Administration has signaled a prioritization of fossil fuel interests over environmental and public health concerns.
We learned about this plan during the 2024 Presidential campaign when he hosted oil executives at Mar-a-Lago.
Another notable rollback of the Trump administration was a withdraw of the entire Offshore Continental Shelf from wind energy leasing. Trump also paused approvals for wind energy projects.
He instructed cabinet members to review federal wind leasing and permitting practices to assess the environmental impact and cost of “defunct and idle” windmills.
During his first term, the Trump Administration significantly favored fossil fuel production, promoting policies that opened up public lands for drilling and fracking. These actions aimed to boost domestic energy production and create jobs in the fossil fuel sector.
However, they also raised concerns regarding the environmental consequences of such practices, including habitat destruction, groundwater contamination, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to expanding fossil fuel production again in 2025, the Trump Administration has rolled back numerous environmental regulations designed to protect air and water quality. This not only benefits the fossil fuel industry but also poses risks to public health and ecosystems across the nation.
Fossil fuel companies received numerous tax breaks and subsidies during the first Trump term that effectively incentivized continued reliance on non-renewable energy sources.
These financial benefits allowed companies to maximize profits while minimizing their environmental responsibilities, further entrenching the country’s dependence on fossil fuels.
This approach creates an environment where corporations can operate with fewer restrictions, potentially leading to increased pollution and negative impacts on the environment.
These tax incentives have drawn criticism from environmentalists who argue that taxpayer money should be directed towards sustainable energy solutions rather than propping up an industry often linked to climate change.
The prioritization of fossil fuels during the second Trump presidency has significant repercussions on renewable energy investments. The administration’s anti-renewable energy stance creates uncertainties in the market, discouraging potential investors and companies from committing to green technologies.
As a result, the momentum gained in the renewable sector during the previous administration faces substantial setbacks.
Although the U.S. has vast potential for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, the lack of federal support under Trump hinders progress and innovation in this area. The implications of these missed opportunities are likely to be felt for years to come, as other nations continue to advance their renewable energy initiatives.
During his first term, President Trump initiated a comprehensive effort to cut numerous environmental regulations, arguing that they hindered economic growth.
These rollbacks included weakening the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and reducing protections for wetlands and waterways.
Such measures were met with fierce backlash from environmental groups and activists who pointed out the potential long-term consequences of diminished regulatory oversight.
This approach reflects a broader systemic issue, where political and economic interests often overshadow environmental policies.
By prioritizing short-term economic gains over environmental protection in his first term, Trump encouraged a narrative that equated regulation with job loss, promoting resistance to critical environmental policies.
The current Trump administration made significant moves to open public lands for oil drilling and gas extraction, accelerating the pace of fossil fuel development.
This policy decision has also raised alarms among environmentalists and Indigenous communities who rely on these lands for their cultural and ecological value. The risks associated with increased drilling include oil spills, habitat destruction, and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Such actions have sparked widespread protests and legal challenges, as activists seek to protect vulnerable ecosystems from exploitation. The ramifications of these policies extend beyond the immediate environmental impact, influencing public perception and engagement in the climate movement.
This shift in regulatory approach has lasting implications for the environment and public health.
Global Perception of U.S. Environmental Policies
The stark contrast in environmental policies between the Trump and Biden administrations profoundly influenced global perceptions of American leadership on climate issues.
During Trump’s first presidency, many international leaders expressed concern over the U.S.’s withdrawal from global climate agreements and the apparent disregard for scientific consensus on climate change.
As Biden re-engaged with the international community, addressing climate change had become a central theme in U.S. diplomacy. However, the lingering effects of the previous administration’s policies continued to shape how other countries viewed U.S. commitment to environmental stewardship.
With Trump back in the White House, once again pulling us out of global agreements and reversing environmental policies, the country is back to being viewed as unwilling to combat the climate crisis in the eyes of our allies.
When comparing U.S. environmental policies to those of other nations, the discrepancies can be stark. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark have become leaders in renewable energy adoption and emissions reduction, often holding the U.S. up as a cautionary tale of what happens when policy is driven by short-term economic interests rather than long-term sustainability.
The U.S. has the capacity to be a leader in climate action, but the varied approaches between administrations create inconsistencies that can undermine global cooperation. As nations strive to meet their climate goals, the U.S. must foster international relationships that prioritize environmental integrity.
Addressing climate change should be a bipartisan endeavor. Republicans have slowly come around to now agreeing that climate change is real. Extremists, however, like President Trump still have the mindset that climate change is a “hoax.”
The Role of Activism in Shaping Policies
Activism has played a pivotal role in shaping environmental policies in the U.S. The rise of grassroots movements, such as the Youth Climate Strike and the Extinction Rebellion, highlights a growing demand for urgent action on climate change.
These movements have successfully pressured politicians to adopt more ambitious environmental policies, bridging the gap between public sentiment and legislative action.
As activists continue to raise awareness about the climate crisis, they have the potential to influence the actions of future administrations. By holding leaders accountable and advocating for just policies, environmental activism remains a powerful force in shaping the trajectory of U.S. environmental policy.
The environmental legacies of the Biden and Trump administrations illustrate the profound impact that presidential policies can have on climate change and public health.
While Biden’s initiatives reflected a commitment to international cooperation and comprehensive climate action, Trump’s approaches highlights the risks associated with prioritizing short-term economic gains over environmental protection.
As the U.S. navigates climate change, the need for cohesive and ambitious policies is more critical than ever.
The future of the planet depends on effective leadership and the collective efforts of activists, policymakers, and citizens working together to advocate for a sustainable world. Translation: We must get President Trump out of office as soon as we get the chance (future elections remain uncertain with his authoritarian tendencies).
Gov-Politics
Lifestyle
Health
