Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

Background

Before its revocation, Executive Order 14008 established a comprehensive framework that positioned climate change at the core of U.S. foreign policy and national security. This order mandated federal agencies to integrate climate considerations into their international engagements, effectively creating a global network focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering resilience to climate impacts. The Department of Defense and other security-focused entities incorporated climate risk assessments into their strategic plans, leading to an operational shift that aligned military assets and operations with climate resilience objectives. Additionally, the reinstatement of previous climate-related directives underscored a broad governmental commitment to emissions reduction and renewable energy transition.

This executive order also led to the creation of new institutional structures within the federal government, such as the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy and the National Climate Task Force. These bodies played a pivotal role in coordinating a government-wide response to the climate crisis, ensuring that federal actions were consistently aligned with the administration’s climate goals. The Task Force facilitated collaboration among diverse federal agencies, enabling the integration of climate policies across sectors, from transportation to energy, and from agriculture to housing. This institutional alignment supported more cohesive policymaking, which was reflected in subsequent regulatory and operational measures adopted by the involved agencies.

Operational changes stemming from the order included prioritizing clean energy procurement across federal fleets and facilities, and directing the Department of the Interior to pause new oil and gas leases on public lands for a comprehensive review. Agencies were instructed to pursue investments that would transition infrastructure towards sustainability, thereby fostering long-term economic opportunities, particularly in clean energy sectors. Such directives without formal rulemaking accelerated the shift toward clean vehicles and renewable energy installations on federal land. This concerted approach was integral to reducing carbon footprints at an accelerated pace, and the strategic focus on environmental justice sought to rectify historical disparities by directing clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this comprehensive climate order in January 2025 by President Donald Trump appeared to signal a reversion to policies more favorable to traditional energy sectors, aligning with the ideological underpinnings of Trump's prior administration. This shift was likely part of a broader deregulatory agenda premised on reducing federal oversight in favor of market-driven solutions, especially within industries burdened by stringent environmental regulations. Such a policy stance echoed earlier priorities to diminish the federal government’s role in climate change initiatives, perceived as impediments to economic growth, particularly in energy and manufacturing.

The revocation can be seen as a reflection of skepticism toward climate science and an emphasis on energy independence driven by fossil fuels. Prioritization of extracting domestic oil, coal, and natural gas resources fits within a larger narrative encouraging the revitalization of the American fossil fuel industry. A return to prioritizing energy security and job preservation in traditional energy sectors likely overshadowed the prior administration's policy orientations around global climate leadership and multilateral environmental treaties.

Furthermore, the revocation may have been motivated by political considerations, attempting to solidify support among key constituencies in resource-rich states that benefitted from expanded fossil fuel development. This aligns with the politics of appealing to voter bases reliant on coal mining and oil drilling for economic security. The shift represented a commitment to roll back perceived federal overreach and emphasize state-led energy development policies.

Overall, the repeal of this executive order denoted a significant ideological pivot, deprioritizing climate considerations in federal policy and re-establishing a resource extraction-focused strategy. This approach underscored an administration less inclined to view climate change as an imminent threat warranting immediate federal intervention.

Winners

Among those set to benefit from the revocation of this climate-focused executive order, the fossil fuel industry, including major oil and gas corporations like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and coal producers such as Peabody Energy, stood to gain significant advantages. With the suspension of federal directives pausing new oil and gas leases on public lands, these companies found renewed opportunities to expand their exploration and extraction activities, including tapping federal lands previously restricted for climate reasons. The lifting of limitations on fossil fuel financing and development potentially unlocked billions in revenue and investment opportunities for these industries.

States with economies heavily dependent on resource extraction, such as Texas, Wyoming, and West Virginia, also found themselves poised to benefit economically. The revitalization of industry activities previously constrained by federal climate-related mandates promised to bolster state revenues through increased energy production and job creation in these areas. By progressively dismantling environmentally motivated constraints, these states could experience a resurgence in their traditional energy sectors, significantly impacting local economies reliant on fossil fuels.

Additionally, industrial sectors facing compliance costs under climate-driven regulations saw potential financial relief. Companies in manufacturing and transportation benefited from reduced federal oversight and potential cost savings derived from relaxed emissions standards and other environmental compliance measures. This strategic emphasis on resource utilization over climate constraints could translate into enhanced profitability and competitive advantage in the short term.

Losers

Conversely, the withdrawal of climate priorities placed renewable energy industries and climate advocacy groups at a distinct disadvantage. Companies invested in the clean energy transition, such as Tesla in the electric vehicle sector or NextEra Energy in renewable generation, faced uncertainty in a policy environment no longer favoring clean energy investments. Potentially reduced incentives and a constrained market environment made it more challenging to sustain growth trajectories envisioned under supportive federal policies.

Communities historically impacted by pollution, particularly low-income and minority populations, were rendered vulnerable. The rollback of environmental justice initiatives posed risks to health and welfare, reversing progress made under programs designed to mitigate pollution and improve living conditions in areas burdened by industrial emissions. Moreover, by deprioritizing funding flows to disadvantaged communities for clean infrastructure and technology, there was potential to exacerbate existing societal inequities.

On a global scale, international allies and partners aligned on climate cooperation initiatives with the U.S. stood to perceive diminished leadership and engagement from a nation retracting from climate commitments. This pivot could impact collaborative efforts under frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, where U.S. participation was perceived as a linchpin for global climate ambitions. By downplaying federal leadership, the shift potentially undermined international momentum for climate action, weakening multilateral frameworks that relied on U.S. support.