Donald Trump has overshadowed all this with outlandish policy proposals. If it goes ahead with these decisions, it would telegraph a dangerous, reckless rollback from renewable energy and a spectacular return to fossil fuels. In a significant move, Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on copper imports, a key mineral essential for both artificial intelligence and renewable energy technologies. He proclaimed this revival in his Independence Day speech last year, boasting that “coal is back.” This one key statement gives a glimpse into his overall anti-environmentalism ideological position.
On July 4, Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which effectively ended most federal subsidies for renewable energy sources. In advance of these announcements, he reached out to our leaders on the national stage. He warned them of the new tariffs they would soon face on their exports to the United States. These developments are raising questions about the future of renewable energy in America as global competitors, especially China, continue to invest heavily in alternative energy sources.
A New Tariff Era
Copper will bear an especially heavy burden from Trump’s tariffs. In addition, they plan to impose new taxes of at least 10 percent on all imports coming into the U.S. market. As for whether these tariffs will be paid by foreign countries—presumably through their evil currency manipulation—and not American consumers, well… Trump’s just plain wrong. Experts counter that this bubble-bursting narrative misses a critical point. Unlike traditional tariffs, which tax foreign goods directly, these tariffs function as a statewide sales tax, directly harming American buyers or forcing local importers to absorb additional costs.
“We will charge (insert country) a Tariff of only (insert number) on any and all … products sent into the United States.” – Donald Trump
The economic implications are significant. All of the Trump’s tariffs will soon be increased to nearly $500 billion. That increase alone would be enough to produce a combined $30 billion in additional revenue, before their full implementation. Critics argue that this strategy will hurt U.S. manufacturers in advanced technology industries. Many of them are concerned about fierce competition from Chinese companies in the emerging renewable energy economy.
Ideological Rejection of Renewable Energy
Even more recently, Trump’s Independence Day address served as a perfect ideological summary of Trump’s anti-renewable energy crusade. He stated, “Coal is back. You can’t use the word ‘coal’ unless you precede it by saying ‘clean beautiful coal.’” This rhetoric embodies a stunning abdication of environmental stewardship. Some analysts have interpreted it as a macho posture against the so-called “wokeism” that he loudly claims to oppose.
In addition to revealing Trump’s misunderstanding of the wind industry, his remarks signal his broader skepticism towards all renewable resources. He noted, “I noticed something — with all the windmills that China sends us…you know they make about 95 percent of them, the wind turbines, I have never seen a wind farm in China! Why is that?” He genuinely believes that the U.S. should go back to using fossil fuels. Wind and solar The claim This position runs against the data Wind and solar have become some of the least expensive forms of energy everywhere, including in China.
Global Energy Landscape Shifts
Even as Trump’s administration doubles down on fossil fuels, the rest of the world is moving ahead on renewable energy. Countries around the globe, especially China, are rapidly investing in these sustainable technologies, putting the U.S. at risk of being left behind. The cost of generating power from wind and solar sources has plummeted, making them more competitive than coal in many markets.
TSU economists warn that the Trump administration’s attack on renewable energy is more than just an economic miscalculation. It’s an ideological one. Paul Krugman remarked on this trend: “Real men burn stuff and don’t worry if the process is dirty.” This statement supports the concern shared by many advocates and some policymakers that focusing local and state resources on fossil fuels instead of greener alternatives ignores major environmental crises.
