President Donald Trump has made dismantling what he calls the “Green New Scam” a cornerstone of his second administration’s energy policy. Since taking office in January, his administration has systematically rolled back environmental regulations while simultaneously pursuing critical minerals essential for green technology. This apparent contradiction reveals a complex strategy that transcends simple anti-environmentalism, mixing economic nationalism, geopolitical maneuvering, and energy security concerns.
What Is the “Green New Scam”?
In his March 2025 address to Congress, President Trump referred to his predecessor’s climate initiatives as the “Green New Scam,” a derisive twist on the “Green New Deal” concept championed by progressive Democrats. According to Trump, these initiatives represented wasteful government spending that harmed American businesses while failing to address real energy needs.
The term specifically targets the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed during the Biden administration in August 2022, which included approximately $430 billion in climate and clean energy spending and tax credits. Independent estimates later valued the climate provisions at over $1 trillion by 2032, though the IRA reportedly saved the government $240 billion through increased tax enforcement and prescription drug savings.
While the original “Green New Deal” was never enacted into law, remaining a non-binding resolution, the IRA became the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history. By August 2024, it had generated an estimated $493 billion in investment for U.S. green industries.
Trump’s Energy Independence Agenda
The White House has framed Trump’s energy policy as a path to “American energy dominance,” emphasizing traditional fossil fuels as the cornerstone of economic security. Key actions of this agenda include:
- Declaring a National Energy Emergency
- Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council
- Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time
- Re-opening 625 million acres for offshore drilling
- Ending the Biden administration’s pause on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects
- Pausing federal permitting for wind farms
In his address to Congress, Trump claimed these policies would save “hundreds of billions of dollars” while creating American jobs and ensuring energy independence. “We will take in trillions and trillions of dollars,” Trump said of his energy and tariff policies.
The Critical Minerals Contradiction
Despite public opposition to green technology initiatives, the Trump administration has shown keen interest in securing critical minerals essential for manufacturing those very technologies. The president has pursued deals with Ukraine, Greenland, and Canada—all nations rich in these resources.
Critical minerals include rare earth elements and metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel that are essential components in:
- Electric vehicle batteries
- Solar panels
- Wind turbines
- Defense systems
- Advanced electronics
According to Elizabeth Holley of the Colorado School of Mines, demand for lithium grew by 30% in 2023, primarily driven by clean energy and electric vehicle sectors. The International Energy Agency projects that within two decades, clean energy technologies will account for:
- 90% of lithium demand
- 70% of cobalt demand
- 40% of rare earth elements demand
China’s Mineral Dominance
Trump’s critical minerals strategy appears motivated by concerns about China’s dominance in this sector. A December 2023 U.S. Government Select Committee report warned that America’s dependence on China for these materials poses significant national security risks.
China’s strategic advantage includes:
- 60% of global rare earth production
- Processing nearly 90% of rare earths
- Strategic investments in mineral-rich regions of Africa and South America
- The ability to leverage mineral supply as an economic weapon
After Trump introduced tariffs on Chinese goods early in his administration, China retaliated by imposing export controls on more than 20 critical minerals, including graphite and tungsten, demonstrating the geopolitical leverage these resources provide.
The Elon Musk Factor
Elon Musk’s influence on Trump’s minerals strategy cannot be overstated. As a key advisor to the president and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk brings his experience as CEO of Tesla and SpaceX—companies heavily reliant on critical minerals.
In 2022, Musk expressed concern about soaring lithium prices, even suggesting Tesla might need to enter mining and refining directly. His companies require:
- Graphite for electric vehicle batteries
- Lithium for energy storage
- Nickel for rockets and battery cathodes
Musk understands that regardless of climate policy positions, these minerals represent a strategic necessity for American technological competitiveness—a perspective that appears to be influencing the administration’s approach.
Economic Reality vs. Political Rhetoric
Trump’s dual approach—publicly dismantling climate initiatives while pursuing minerals essential for green technology—reflects a pragmatic recognition of economic realities. Several factors complicate the administration’s ability to completely abandon the green technology sector:
1. Republican States Benefit from Green Investment
Analysis by the Clean Investment Monitor shows that in the 18 months before Trump took office, Republican-held states received 77% of green technology investment generated by the IRA. States like Georgia have become part of what’s known as the “battery belt,” with manufacturing jobs dependent on these initiatives.
MIT economist Christopher Knittel notes that for these states, tax credits from the IRA are “crucial for these industries to survive,” creating a political dilemma for Republican representatives facing re-election in 2026.
2. Investor Confidence Remains Strong
Despite uncertainty about the future of climate initiatives, investor interest in clean energy remains robust. Carl Fleming, a former advisor to Biden’s Renewable Energy committee, reports that his clean tech practice “has been busier than ever” even after Trump’s election.
Industry experts suggest that parts of the IRA may survive in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”—his planned omnibus legislation—potentially alongside expanded fossil fuel development, reflecting an “all of the above” energy approach.
3. The China Competition
Perhaps most significantly, abandoning green technology entirely would cede an enormous economic advantage to China, which recognized the sector’s potential a decade ago and now dominates global markets for solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles.
As Bob Ward of the London School of Economics notes, China “made a decision about 10 years ago about where the trend was going and has strategically pursued the development of not just renewables but also electric vehicles.”
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What exactly is the “Green New Scam” according to President Trump?
President Trump uses this term to refer to climate initiatives from the Biden administration, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate provisions. He characterizes these programs as wasteful government spending that disadvantages American businesses while providing minimal environmental benefit.
2. Has the “Green New Scam” been completely terminated?
While Trump claimed in his address to Congress that he had terminated the “Green New Scam,” the reality is more complicated. The Inflation Reduction Act remains law, and completely dismantling it would require congressional action. The administration has, however, reversed many climate-related executive orders and withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.
3. Why is Trump interested in critical minerals if he opposes green technology?
Critical minerals are essential not only for green technology but also for defense systems and advanced electronics. The administration’s interest appears primarily motivated by concerns about China’s dominance in this sector and the strategic importance of these resources for national security, regardless of climate policy.
4. How has the business community responded to Trump’s energy policies?
Investor response has been mixed. Traditional fossil fuel companies have welcomed regulatory rollbacks, while the clean energy sector has shown surprising resilience. Many businesses are adopting a “wait and see” approach, continuing green technology investments while preparing for potential policy shifts.
5. Will Trump’s policies increase or decrease energy costs for Americans?
The administration claims its policies will reduce energy costs by increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas. However, economists note that global market forces, rather than U.S. policy alone, typically determine energy prices. The long-term impact remains uncertain, particularly as renewable energy costs continue to decline globally.
Conclusion: Beyond Environmental Politics
Trump’s approach to the “Green New Scam” reveals an administration more concerned with economic nationalism and geopolitical advantage than environmental ideology. While publicly rejecting climate initiatives, the pursuit of critical minerals essential for green technology suggests a pragmatic recognition of economic realities.
The administration appears to be charting a course that prioritizes American resource control and manufacturing capacity, regardless of whether the end products serve traditional or renewable energy markets. As Professor Christopher Knittel of MIT observed, it’s a “happy coincidence” that securing critical minerals could ultimately support green technology development, even if that’s not the stated goal.
For businesses and investors navigating this landscape, the key insight may be that beneath the rhetoric of the “Green New Scam” lies a more complex strategy—one that may ultimately prove less hostile to green technology than the administration’s public statements suggest, provided those technologies serve American economic interests first.
As with previous administrations, the gap between campaign promises and governing realities continues to shape American energy policy, with market forces and geopolitical competition often proving more influential than political ideology in determining the nation’s energy future.
