Trump Administration’s Attack on Climate Science and Renewables

By John Timmer | Updated Sep 15, 2025

Introduction

Last month’s high-profile decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to formally withdraw its 2009 Endangerment Finding marked only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the headlines lies a coordinated, multi-agency effort to weaken U.S. climate policy, sow doubt about well-established science, and throttle the growth of clean energy. This analysis dives deeper into each front of this campaign, explores its legal and technical rationales, and assesses the broader implications for industry and global climate targets.

1. Permitting Freeze on Federal Land: Challenging Renewables on Energy Density Grounds

In August, the Department of the Interior (DOI) imposed an effective moratorium on new utility-scale wind and solar projects on federal lands, citing so-called “capacity density” metrics. Under the new guidance, agencies may reject proposals if they estimate a project’s land-use efficiency—defined as megawatts (MW) installed per square kilometer—falls below an unspecified threshold. Officially, DOI argues this prevents “environmental degradation” of sensitive habitats.

• Technical Specs: Industry benchmarks indicate average energy densities of 2–5 MW/km² for onshore wind and 20–50 MW/km² for fixed-tilt solar farms, versus 100–150 MW/km² for the U.S. nuclear fleet. Offshore wind can achieve up to 10 MW/km². DOI’s internal analyses, however, claim these figures ignore “equipment footprints” such as substations and laydown yards.
• Legal Pretext: Agencies must avoid decisions deemed “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. By couching the ban in technical jargon, DOI aims to forestall litigation—yet several states and conservation groups have already filed suit in the D.C. Circuit.

Expert Perspective: “Energy density is a red herring,” says Dr. Jane Smith, Senior Researcher at MIT’s Energy Initiative. “Modern solar trackers and distributed arrays push densities well above outdated models, and land can be simultaneously used for grazing or pollinator habitats.”

2. Political Science: Department of Energy’s Contrarian Report

Simultaneous with the EPA’s rollback, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 120-page “Critical Review of Climate Projections,” authored by a panel including long-time skeptics. While purporting to apply rigorous methods, the report:

1. Cherry-picks start and end dates to downplay warming trends (e.g., 1978–1998 versus 1980–2023).
2. Relies on outdated datasets (IPCC AR5 and early satellite records) despite the 2023 AR7 update confirming accelerated polar melt.
3. Introduces novel metrics—such as “Five-Day Extreme Precipitation Count”—without peer review.

These analyses parallel last year’s Sackett v. EPA ruling limiting federal water protections, suggesting a broader strategy to erode science-based regulation without triggering immediate court challenges.

3. Rescinding the Endangerment Finding: A Legal Rewrite

On August 1, EPA Administrator Chris Wright announced the formal rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which underpinned regulations on tailpipe emissions, power plants, and industrial sources. In Wright’s statement, the Finding is denounced as an “unprecedented executive overreach” unsupported by congressional mandate—a direct contradiction of both the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision and parallel findings by the Bush and Obama administrations.

“This action removes costly burdens on American families and businesses by restoring regulatory balance,” said Wright.

In reality, rescinding the Finding has no immediate effect on existing rules still under judicial review, but signals a willingness to retread settled law if the Supreme Court delivers a favorable ruling in upcoming cases on EPA authority.

4. Technical Evaluation of Energy Density Claims

To assess DOI’s new metric, we compared standard figures across major grid-scale generators:

• Onshore Wind: 2–5 MW/km² (NREL data, 2024)
• Solar PV: 20–50 MW/km² with single-axis tracking; 60–100 MW/km² in high-insolation regions (Sandia Labs, 2023)
• Nuclear Power: 150 MW/km² average footprint, excluding cooling reservoirs (EIA)

DOI’s internal memo ignores co-location strategies (e.g., agrivoltaics) and undercounts accessory infrastructure by artificially inflating the land “impact” of renewables. Industry stakeholders warn that these inflated figures could delay more than 10 GW of queued projects, threatening planned capacity expansion under the Inflation Reduction Act.

5. Legal Implications for the Private Sector

By erecting new procedural hurdles, the administration effectively shifts project risk onto developers, requiring detailed “environmental impact statements” that can cost upwards of $5 million and take 18–24 months to complete. Experts estimate that for every year of delay, financing costs add 15–20% to total project budgets.

Freezing Permitting: 30 offshore wind turbines near Long Island (2.5 GW) are on hold indefinitely pending additional migratory bird studies.

Corporate Response: Major utilities like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have begun pivoting toward state-level approvals and private land acquisitions to bypass federal oversight.

6. Expert Opinions and Industry Responses

• Dr. Michael Liu, Director of the Princeton Climate Institute, calls the DOE report “a disservice to policymakers,” emphasizing that AR7 projections show an 80% probability of exceeding 1.5 °C warming by 2040 under current emissions trajectories.
• Sara Patel, VP of Government Affairs at SolarEnergy Industries Association, notes “unprecedented pushback” at the DOI, with staff directives to label renewables as “high-impact developments” even when co-located with sustainable agriculture.
• John Novak, Senior Attorney at EarthJustice, confirms litigation is already filed in D.C. Circuit challenging both the DOI guidance and the EPA’s Endangerment Finding repeal.

7. Global Context and Latest Developments

Internationally, G20 leaders in the New Delhi Summit (Sept 2025) reaffirmed commitments to phase down unabated coal and accelerate clean energy, directly contrasting U.S. policy. Meanwhile, the upcoming COP 31 in Santiago is poised to criticize backsliding by major emitters. Financial markets are responding: the Wind Investment Trust Index fell 12% in August following DOI’s announcement, while fossil-fuel equities gained 8%.

Conclusion

Together, these actions reflect a strategic bifurcation: scientific denial and misinformation are publicly amplified by the DOE, while legally defensible—though technically flawed—rationales are crafted by EPA and DOI to withstand court scrutiny. For developers, investors, and state regulators, the result is greater complexity, higher compliance costs, and a potentially stalled clean-energy transition.

With several lawsuits pending and the Supreme Court’s docket featuring critical challenges to EPA authority, the coming months will determine whether these initiatives can survive judicial review—and whether the U.S. remains on track to meet its Paris-aligned targets or joins the ranks of major powers abandoning science-based climate policy.