How Trump's Executive Order Can Change American Energy Policy
One of President Donald Trump's executive orders from his first week in office called for "unleashing American energy" and making significant changes to US energy policy.
The document makes an about-face on many Biden era programs, tries to block the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, and calls for new fossil fuel pipelines, among other things.
"It is a lot of words, it is not very specific in certain areas," said Louise Bedsworth, executive director at the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California Berkeley.
The message shows a marked departure from the renewable energy push of the Biden era. "It's this ping-pong" in policy priorities, Bedsworth said, which can be very destabilizing to an industry.
But what can this executive order actually do, and how will it affect you as a consumer? Here's what the experts say you should be looking out for.
Many, many things. Experts said these elements stand out:
The order aims to "encourage energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters." Generally, "energy exploration" refers to digging and drilling for fossil fuels.
It rescinds many of President Joe Biden's executive orders related to climate change.
It terminates "all activities, programs, and operations associated with the American Climate Corps."
It aims to make permitting for fossil fuel pipelines faster and easier.
It immediately pauses all federal funds being sent out through the Inflation Reduction Act.
A lot of these measures rely on federal agencies, and in large part the executive order is asking agency heads to come back in 60 or 90 days with an action plan. So it remains to be seen what will actually change within federal agencies, Bedsworth said.
"It's going to be very challenging to track all those pieces and understand, where did we land?" she said.
Executive orders seem like powerful documents, but they do not have the power to change the law; that would require an act of Congress. So here's a breakdown of what the energy executive order can actually accomplish:
Some of these actions also toe the line of executive power, Bedsworth said, which means, "a lot of this, we'll end up seeing in the courts."
"If nothing else, it creates a lot of uncertainty," Bedsworth said.
The Inflation Reduction Act in particular is home to many consumer-level programs, including the EV tax credit as well as home energy credits, which give big discounts on solar panels and heat pumps.
The executive order can pause funds being distributed by the IRA, but cannot permanently block them without an act of Congress. Plus, many of the incentives for consumers are structured as tax incentives through the IRS, not as direct funding from the government, so they are less likely to be impacted.
Even if the funding streams remain in place, however, there will likely be less government outreach and education to help consumers access them. "You're ultimately going to see a cooling, at a minimum, in the messaging," Bedsworth said.
Of course, none of this stops you as the consumer from going out and buying an EV, for example. "The technology is getting better, the cost is going down, so the ability to own an EV is still there," says Elaina Farnsworth, CEO of SkillFusion, which trains workers to build electric infrastructure.
And if you already purchased clean energy technology last year, like solar panels for your home, and are hoping to claim a tax credit during this year's tax season, you should be safe: Experts say it's unlikely Trump would interfere with the IRS in distributing those tax credits for 2024 purchases.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCLA Asks Sixth Circuit to Revive Suit Over Dept. of Education's Illegal Student Loan Payment Pause
Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. U.S. Department of Education; Sec'y of Education Linda McMahon, in her official capacity; and James Bergeron, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, in his official capacity Washington, DC, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an opening brief today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a district court's dismissal, for lack of standing, of our Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Dept. of Education lawsuit against the Department's unlawfully forgiving 35 months of interest on student loans. Without any statutory authority, the Department extended Congress's original six-month interest forgiveness and payment suspension for nearly three more years, cancelling debt in violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause at a cost of at least $175 billion to taxpayers, harming the Mackinac Center in the process. This scheme injures public-service employers like Mackinac by reducing the financial incentives for (potential) employees to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The Sixth Circuit should decide Mackinac does have standing and require the district court to hear the case on the merits against the Department's unlawful policy. Established by Congress, the PSLF program allows employees to have their student-loan debt forgiven after ten years of work with one or more public-service employers. When the Department excused debtors from paying interest on their loans, it decreased—dollar for dollar—the wage subsidy the program promised to public-service employers like the Mackinac Center, making it more expensive for them to keep compensating their PSLF employees at the same level. The economic harm caused by the Department's unlawfully excusing student-loan debtors from honoring their obligations is enough, on its own, to require the government to answer for its actions in court. But in addition to that, the Department's lawless decisions also skewed the labor market in a way that frustrates the congressionally-designed PSLF program, increases the cost for the Mackinac Center to compete for college-educated employees, and costs taxpayers billions. The Department caused these injuries, and now the Court of Appeals should make sure it must answer for them. NCLA released the following statements: 'Governmental agencies cannot blithely ignore the law without expecting to answer for the harm their unlawful actions cause organizations like the Mackinac Center. We trust the Court of Appeals will make that clear to the Department of Education.'— Daniel Kelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'The Department of Education under Secretary McMahon should settle this case. What possible reason does it have to keep defending the lawless regime instituted by former Secretary Miguel Cardona and Richard Cordray to forgive student-loan debt—or in this case interest on that debt—without authority from Congress?'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the case page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in to access your portfolio


Time Magazine
32 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump
The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies —a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. What do we know about the Epstein files so far? On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Will the Musk allegations prompt the release of further Epstein files? Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. What do we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein? Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lululemon Stretched by Tariffs, Macro
Lululemon beat Wall Street's top- and bottom-line expectations, but it cut guidance over macroeconomic concerns. The company's international business posted solid growth, but the Americas region was weak. Lululemon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of tariffs, but until U.S. consumer confidence grows, there is little the company can do to bounce back. 10 stocks we like better than Lululemon Athletica Inc. › Here's our initial take on Lululemon Athletica's (NASDAQ: LULU) financial report. Metric Q1 2024 Q1 2025 Change vs. Expectations Revenue $2.2 billion $2.4 billion 7.3% Beat Earnings per share $2.54 $2.60 2% Beat Comparable sales 6% 1% -500 bps n/a Gross margin 57.7% 58.3% 60 bps n/a Athletic apparel specialist Lululemon beat Wall Street top- and bottom-line expectations for the quarter, delivering 7.3% revenue growth and a slight uptick in earnings per share. But CEO Calvin McDonald warned of a "dynamic macroenvironment" that the company expects to weigh on results in the quarters to come. First, the good news. Revenue growth came in toward the top of Lululemon's guidance, fueled by strong 6% international comparable sales. Overall international net revenue increased by 19%, or 20% when adjusted for currency fluctuations. But Americas comp sales were down 2% and overall revenue was up by just 3%, pressured by an uncertain American consumer. Lululemon does not expect those pressures to ease in the months to come. The company cut its full-year guidance, saying it now expects to earn between $14.58 and $14.78 per share. That's down from its previous $14.95 to $15.15 per share guidance, and below Wall Street's $14.89 consensus estimate. The somber tone and cut guidance appeared to have caught investors off guard. Lululemon shares, already down 11% for the year heading into earnings, were down 20% in after-hours trading ahead of the New York open Friday. McDonald pledged to "leverage our strong financial position and competitive advantages to play offense, while we continue to invest in the growth opportunities in front of us." Lululemon has the wherewithal to weather this storm, but there is only so much the company can do in this environment. Chief financial officer Meghan Frank, on the post-earnings call, said the company is looking to take "strategic price increases" to mitigate the impact of tariffs, as well as evaluating sourcing options. But any efficiency gains made will take time to play out. The good news for investors is Lululemon market share held up well in a rough environment, which implies there is nothing wrong with the brand. But until there is more certainty on the macro front, Lululemon stock could be stuck in neutral. Full earnings report Investor relations page Additional coverage Before you buy stock in Lululemon Athletica Inc., consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Lululemon Athletica Inc. wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Lou Whiteman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Lululemon Athletica Inc. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Lululemon Stretched by Tariffs, Macro was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data