A ‘For Sale’ sign is seen on March 19 in Austin, Texas. Policymakers are watching for indications of what President-elect Donald Trump plans to do to ease housing costs next year after an election where voters were laser-focused on the economy.

Americans hand over a huge chunk of their paycheck for a roof over their heads. Policymakers are looking out for indications of what President-elect Donald Trump plans to do to ease housing costs next year after an election where voters were laser-focused on the economy.

Housing accounted for 32.9% of consumers’ spending in 2023, making it the largest share of consumer expenditures, according to the most recently available data Bureau of Labor Statistics. And that was an increase of 5.7% from 2022.

This year, many Americans still struggle to find affordable housing, whether they choose to rent or buy a home.

There’s a lot economists and housing advocates still don’t know about what to expect from a second Trump term. It’s unclear which campaign promises will find their way into administrative rules or  legislation, even with a Republican trifecta – the GOP will control the White House and both chambers of Congress.

But policy experts, researchers and economic analysts are looking at Trump’s record, his recent remarks on housing, and  Project 2025 – the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 900-page plan to overhaul the executive branch – for a glimpse of what may lie ahead.

Tariffs and the cost of building homes

Trump has spoken frequently of his proposed 60% tariff on goods from China, which he has said would create more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Tariffs could be as high as 20% on goods from other countries.

But housing economists and other experts say that could be bad news for building more affordable housing.

Selma Hepp, chief economist for CoreLogic, a financial services company, said tariffs are one of her main concerns about the effects of a second Trump term.

“One of the biggest concerns is not just lumber [costs], but the overall cost of materials, which have been going up,” said Selma Hepp, chief economist for CoreLogic, a financial services company.

Construction material prices have risen 38.8% since February 2020, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors’ analysis of October Producer Price Index data.

Kurt Paulsen, professor of urban planning in the department of planning and landscape architecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said building costs are already high from tariffs on Canadian lumber that Trump first imposed and that the Biden administration kept and increased.

“It used to be in construction that you would get a bid from a contractor or a subcontractor or supplier and it would be good for 60 days. Now, the bids are good for like five days because you don’t know where prices are going to be,” he said.

Immigration policy and its effect on construction labor

Trump tweeted on Nov. 18 that he is planning to use the declaration of a national emergency as part of his mass  deportation plan.

Besides disrupting lives, Trump’s plan  could have effects on what it costs to build housing, Hepp said.

“There is the cost of labor as well, if we do indeed have all these deportations. That’s a big, big concern,” she said. “A large share of labor in the construction industry obviously comes from immigrants. That is a huge issue for new construction and particularly new construction as it relates to affordable housing.”

Foreign-born construction workers made up 3 million of the 11.9 million people who work in the construction industry in 2023, according to the latest American Community Survey data.

Trump’s ‘not in my backyard’  rhetoric

The former president hasn’t always been clear on where he stands with zoning regulations and making way for more affordable housing in a wide variety of neighborhoods.

In a July Bloomberg interview, Trump spoke critically of zoning regulations and said that they drive up housing costs. But Trump also has a record of tending toward a “not in my backyard,” or NIMBY, approach to housing that maintained some of these zoning regulations. The Trump administration moved to roll back an Obama-era regulation that tied HUD funding to assessing and reducing housing discrimination in neighborhoods.

“He’ll talk about reducing regulations on developers, but he’ll also use this NIMBYism talking about protecting suburbs from low-income housing and you really can’t have it both ways,” said Sarah Saadian, senior vice president of public policy and field organizing at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Paulsen said Project 2025 embraces a pushback against anti-NIMBY approaches to expand multi-family housing.

“What I read in the Project 2025 documents is a clear statement that says every local community and neighborhood should be able to choose the housing it wants to accept or not. The challenge of that is that if every community in every neighborhood can veto housing, then we just don’t get enough housing and prices go up and prices and rents go up,” he said.

A more punitive approach to homelessness 

Last year, homelessness rose to its highest level recorded since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development began collecting this information in 2007. The ending of pandemic safety nets that gave some households better financial stability and a lack of affordable housing supply contributed to the number of unhoused people, the report explained.

Trump has been outspoken on his view that homeless people should be “off our streets.” The president-elect has also proposed putting unhoused people with mental health issues into “mental institutions.”

“There’s a movement that I think is largely reflected in Project 2025 that says, actually, cities need more coercive policy tools to enforce public order and to require that someone who’s camping take a shelter placement even if they don’t want it,” Paulsen said.

Saadian said that given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which makes it easier to criminalize unhoused populations for sleeping outside, she’s worried about a changing political environment where policies that prioritize stable housing over policing fall out of favor.

“I think all of that just shows a culture shift in the political dynamic here that we’re definitely worried about,” she said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Donald Trump, at the time president of the United States, listens to then-Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Russ Vought deliver remarks prior to Trump signing executive orders on Oct. 9, 2019, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

WASHINGTON — Incoming White House budget director Russ Vought has spent much of his career learning the detailed, often convoluted mechanisms that make up the Office of Management and Budget.

The agency, little known outside Washington, D.C., is relatively small compared to the rest of the federal government, but it acts like a nucleus for the executive branch and holds significant power.

OMB is responsible for releasing the president’s budget request every year, but also manages much of the executive branch by overseeing departments’ performance, reviewing the vast majority of federal regulations and coordinating how the various agencies communicate with Congress. 

Vought was deputy director, acting director and then director at OMB during Trump’s first term.

Before that Vought worked as vice president of Heritage Action for America, policy director for the U.S. House Republican Conference, executive director of the Republican Study Committee and a legislative assistant for former Texas Republican Sen. Phil Gramm. He has an undergraduate degree from Wheaton College and a law degree from George Washington University Law School.

Following Trump’s first term in office, Vought founded the right-leaning Center for Renewing America. The group’s mission is “to renew a consensus of America as a nation under God with unique interests worthy of defending that flow from its people, institutions, and history, where individuals’ enjoyment of freedom is predicated on just laws and healthy communities.”

Cutting government spending

Vought outlined his agenda for the next four years in Project 2025, a 922-page document from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation that led to speculation during the presidential campaign about what Trump would seek to do without Congress, including in areas that constitutionally fall within the legislative branch, like government spending.

The Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, repeatedly tried to tie Project 2025 to Trump and his campaign, and they sought to distance themselves from its proposals. But Trump has since nominated some of its authors or contributors to run federal departments and agencies.

Vought, in a 26-page chapter on the executive office of the president, wrote the OMB director “must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo.”

Trump, Vought and many others are bullish about cutting government spending, but will likely run into legal challenges if they try to spend more or considerably less than lawmakers approve in the dozen annual government funding bills. 

Budget request

One of Vought’s most visible responsibilities will be releasing the president’s annual budget request, a sweeping document that lays out the commander-in-chief’s proposal for the federal government’s tax and spending policy.

The president’s budget, however, is just a request since Congress has the constitutional authority to establish tax and spending policy.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill write the dozen annual government funding bills that account for about one-third of annual federal spending. The rest of the federal government’s spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are classified as mandatory programs and mostly run on autopilot unless Congress approves changes and the president signs off on a new law.

That separation of powers led to frustration during Trump’s first term in office and will likely do so again, since he spoke during the 2024 campaign about using “impoundment” to prevent the federal government from spending money Congress has approved.

Trump withheld security assistance funding from Ukraine during his first term in office, leading to one of his two impeachments and a ruling from the Government Accountability Office —a nonpartisan government watchdog — that he had violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO wrote. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

Trump spoke on the campaign trail about using “impoundment” to drastically cut government spending, but that would likely lead to lawsuits and a Supreme Court ruling. 

Vought’s think tank, Center for Renewing America, published analysis of presidents using impoundment throughout the country’s history, with the authors concluding the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional.

‘Every possible tool’

Vought sought to defend the president’s budget request in his chapter in Project 2025, writing that though “some mistakenly regard it as a mere paper-pushing exercise, the President’s budget is in fact a powerful mechanism for setting and enforcing public policy at federal agencies.”

He signaled the second Trump administration would be more nuanced in its interpretation of presidential authority.

“The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.” Vought wrote. “Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.”

Vought also wrote about the management aspect of OMB’s portfolio, pressing for political appointees to have more authority and influence than career staff.

“It is vital that the Director and his political staff, not the careerists, drive these offices in pursuit of the President’s actual priorities and not let them set their own agenda based on the wishes of the sprawling ‘good government’ management community in and outside of government,” Vought wrote. “Many Directors do not properly prioritize the management portfolio, leaving it to the Deputy for Management, but such neglect creates purposeless bureaucracy that impedes a President’s agenda—an ‘M Train to Nowhere.’”

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education will be far easier said than done.

As Trump seeks to redefine U.S. education policy, the complex logistics, bipartisan congressional approval and redirection of federal programs required make dismantling the department a challenging — not impossible — feat.

It’s an effort that experts say is unlikely to gain traction in Congress and, if enacted, would create roadblocks for how Trump seeks to implement the rest of his wide-ranging education agenda.

“I struggle to wrap my mind around how you get such a bill through Congress that sort of defunds the agency or eliminates the agency,” Derek Black, an education law and policy expert and law professor at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told States Newsroom.

“What you can see more easily is that maybe you give the agency less money, maybe you shrink its footprint, maybe we’ve got an (Office for Civil Rights) that still enforces all these laws, but instead of however many employees they have now, they have fewer employees,” Black, who directs the school’s Constitutional Law Center, added.

What does the department do?

Education is decentralized in the United States, and the federal Education Department has no say in the curriculum of public schools. Much of the funding and oversight of schools occurs at the state and local levels.

Still, the department has leverage through funding a variety of programs, such as for low-income school districts and special education, as well as administering federal student aid.

Axing the department would require those programs be unwound or assigned to other federal agencies to administer, according to Rachel Perera, a fellow in Governance Studies in the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Perera, who studies inequality in K-12 education, expressed concern over whether other departments would get additional resources and staffing to take on significantly more portfolios of work if current Education Department programs were transferred to them.

Sen. Mike Rounds introduced a bill last week that seeks to abolish the department and transfer existing programs to other federal agencies.

In a statement, the South Dakota Republican said “the federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic Department that causes more harm than good.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposed a detailed plan on how the department could be dismantled through the reorganization of existing programs to other agencies and the elimination of the programs the project deems “ineffective or duplicative.”

Though Trump has repeatedly disavowed the conservative blueprint, some former members of his administration helped write it.

The agenda also calls for restoring state and local control over education funding, and notes that “as Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law.”

Title I, one of the major funding programs the department administers, provides billions of dollars to school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families.

Black pointed to an entire “regulatory regime” that’s built around these funds.

“That regime can’t just disappear unless Title I money also disappears, which could happen, but if you think about Title I money — our rural states, our red states — depend on that money just as much, if not more, than the other states,” he said. “The idea that we would take that money away from those schools — I don’t think there’s any actual political appetite for that.”

‘Inherent logical inconsistencies’

Trump recently tapped Linda McMahon — a co-chair of his transition team, Small Business Administration head during his first term and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO — as his nominee for Education secretary.

If confirmed, she will play a crucial role in carrying out his education plans, which include promoting universal school choice and parental rights, moving education “back to the states” and ending “wokeness” in education.

Trump is threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach “critical race theory,” “gender ideology” or “other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” according to his plan.

On the flip side, he wants to boost funding for states and school districts that adhere to certain policy directives.

That list includes districts that: adopt a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice;” get rid of “teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay;” have parents hold the direct elections of school principals; and drastically reduce the number of school administrators.

But basing funding decisions on district-level policy choices would require the kind of federal involvement in education that Trump is pushing against.

Perera described seeing “inherent logical inconsistencies” in Trump’s education plan.

While he is talking about dismantling the department and sending education “back to the states,” he’s “also talking about leveraging the powers of the department to punish school districts for ‘political indoctrination,’” she said.

“He can’t do that if you are unwinding the federal role in K-12 schools,” she said.

Russell Vought, then-acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, takes a question during a news briefing at the White House on March 11, 2019. President-elect Donald Trump said Friday he would nominate Vought to lead the office in his second administration. . (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump on Friday invited Russell Vought to once again run the White House budget office, though it wasn’t entirely clear how the role will mesh with the government staffing and funding cuts envisioned by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

“Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government, and he will help us return Self Governance to the People,” Trump wrote in his announcement. “We will restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and unleash the American People to new levels of Prosperity and Ingenuity.”

Vought is one of the authors of the wide-ranging conservative policy blueprint Project 2025. During the presidential campaign, Trump sought to distance himself from the document, even as Vought and other veterans of his first administration worked on it.

Vought, who worked as director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term, will be responsible for preparing the president’s annual budget request as well as any emergency spending proposals.

OMB is tasked with helping the president implement policy and oversees various aspects of the executive branch.

The office has influence over virtually all areas of policy and the director is typically the president’s top negotiator on Capitol Hill when it comes to the annual budget and appropriations process.

The president historically submits their budget request to Congress every February, but lawmakers are not bound to implement any aspect of it and often deviate, even during unified control of Washington.

The White House has limited authority to spend federal taxpayer dollars since the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse.

Trump sought to get around Congress’ spending authority during his first administration, but was largely unsuccessful following legal challenges.

For example, withholding $250 million in aid to Ukraine led to Trump’s first impeachment and an opinion from the Government Accountability Office that the decision was a violation of federal law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO wrote. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

Separation of powers questions

Trump stirred up questions and some concerns about the separation of powers after he said that Musk and Ramaswamy would lead an effort to cut government spending and federal employees.

Trump said he was putting the two in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, though Congress hasn’t established that as a federal department nor provided any funding for it.

There are several laws, including the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act, that essentially tell the president they must follow the spending laws that Congress approves, though Trump hopes to get around those during his second term.

Vought at OMB will give the new Trump administration considerable expertise in the different authorities the executive and legislative branches hold under the Constitution.

He worked as deputy director before becoming the acting director and eventually OMB director during the first Trump administration.

Vought since established the Center for Renewing America, which has a mission of renewing “a consensus of America as a nation under God with unique interests worthy of defending that flow from its people, institutions, and history, where individuals’ enjoyment of freedom is predicated on just laws and healthy communities.”

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday he would tap Linda McMahon as Education secretary in his second administration. In this photo, McMahon, at the time the head of the Small Business Administration, speaks during a rally with GOP lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol Nov. 28, 2017 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday night he plans to nominate Linda McMahon, the co-chair of his transition team, to lead the Education Department in his second administration.

“We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort,” Trump said in a statement, referring to his pledge during this campaign to abolish the Department of Education.

McMahon, a decades-long executive with World Wrestling Entertainment and the head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first presidency, has served on the Connecticut Board of Education. The statement said she has also served as a member of the Board of Trustees at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, for two stints totaling over 16 years.

She twice ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut and has been a major fundraiser for Republicans, including Trump.

McMahon led the SBA from 2017 to 2019 and took a position with a Trump political action committee ahead of his 2020 reelection bid. She later became chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank.

McMahon and her husband, Vince McMahon, the founder and longtime leader of WWE, grew the professional wrestling company into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. A recent lawsuit also alleges that WWE and Vince McMahon failed to stop the sexual abuse of underage “Ring Boys,” Axios recently reported. Linda McMahon is a co-defendant in the suit.

Trump’s Education secretary in his first term was Betsy DeVos, another wealthy donor. DeVos resigned from the administration on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.

In a statement, National Education Association President Becky Pringle said McMahon is unqualified for the post.

“During his first term, Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos to undermine and ultimately privatize public schools through vouchers,” Pringle said. “Now, he and Linda McMahon are back at it with their extreme Project 2025 proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, steal resources for our most vulnerable students, increase class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, take away special education services for disabled students, and put student civil rights protections at risk. ”

Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, speaks to attendees during a Sept. 25, 2024, campaign rally in Mint Hill, North Carolina. Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s election could set the stage for wide-ranging changes to education policy. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s return to the presidency could set the stage for sweeping changes in U.S. education policy.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has vowed to “save American education,” with a focus on parental rights and universal school choice — offering a sharp contrast to the Biden administration’s education record.

With Trump’s White House victory cemented, here’s a look at where he stands on education:

Getting rid of U.S. Education Department

Perhaps Trump’s most far-reaching plan for education includes his vow to close down the U.S. Department of Education.

The department — just 45 years old — is not in charge of setting school curriculum, as education is decentralized in the United States. The agency’s mission is to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”

Trump has repeatedly called for moving education “back to the states,” though the responsibility of education already mainly falls on states and local governments, which allocate much of the funding for K-12 schools.

Funding boosts

Trump has proposed funding boosts for states and school districts that comply with his vision for education, including adopting a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice,” according to his plan.

He also wants to give funding preferences to schools who get rid of “teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay.”

He could also ramp up funding for schools that have parents hold the direct elections of principals as well as for schools that significantly reduce the number of their administrators.

Trump’s plan also includes the creation of a credentialing body to certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values, and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but to educate them.”

He is also threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach “critical race theory” or “gender ideology” and vowed to roll back updated Title IX regulations under the Biden administration on his first day back in office.

The updated regulations, which the Biden administration released earlier this year, extend federal protections for LGBTQ+ students.

The final rule rolls back changes to Title IX made under Trump’s previous administration and then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

A slew of GOP-led states have challenged the measure, leading to several legal battles and a policy patchwork throughout the country.

Student debt and higher education

Trump has criticized the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness efforts,  describing them as “not even legal,” and could let go of any mass student loan forgiveness efforts.

Trump could repeal the administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan, which is currently on hold while tied up in a legal challenge. The sweeping initiative seeks to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and lessen the time it takes to pay off their debt.

Meanwhile, the 2024 GOP platform called for making colleges and universities “sane and affordable,” noting that Republicans will “fire Radical Left accreditors, drive down Tuition costs, restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.”

The platform also calls for reducing the cost of higher education through the creation of “additional, drastically more affordable alternatives to a traditional four-year College degree.”

Trump has also proposed the “American Academy,” a free, online university that he says would be endowed through the “billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments.”

Project 2025

Apart from the GOP platform and Trump’s proposals, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposes a sweeping conservative agenda that, if implemented, could have major implications for the future of education.

Though Trump has disavowed the conservative think tank’s blueprint, some former members of his previous administration helped craft the agenda.

Some of the education policy proposals outlined in the extensive document include eliminating the U.S. Education Department and Head Start, ending time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness and restoring the Title IX regulations made under DeVos.

The proposal also states that “the federal government should confine its involvement in education policy to that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”

Major teachers unions react to Trump win

“The voters have spoken. While we hoped and fought for a different outcome, we respect both their will and the peaceful transfer of power,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said in a Wednesday statement.

“At this moment, the country is more divided than ever, and our democracy is in jeopardy. Last night, we saw fear and anger win,” Weingarten said.

Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the country’s largest labor union, said in a statement Wednesday that “this is not the outcome we campaigned for, nor the future we wanted for our students and families, but it is the road through history we now must travel.” 

Project 2025, a policy blueprint created by allies of former President Donald Trump, would increase Ohio households’ annual energy spending and cost the state tens of thousands of jobs by 2030 compared to a continuation of current federal law and policies, a new analysis finds.

Ending federal spending on climate mitigation, as Trump has pledged to do, would cost jobs along with savings from energy efficiency and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, explained Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, which released the analysis last week. 

And those losses would not be offset by expanded development of oil and natural gas, the report finds. 

Analyses for Ohio and 47 other states follow up on a nationwide forecast Energy Innovation prepared this summer, which projected a loss of 1.7 million jobs and billions in added energy spending for U.S. households under Project 2025 compared to current law and policies. Early deaths and greenhouse gas emissions that drive human-caused climate change would also increase, Energy Innovation reported.

Project 2025 bills itself as a “playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration.” Although Trump’s campaign has tried to distance itself from the work by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, many of the authors played a role in his administration. The plan is also promoted by prominent backers of his campaign.

Among other things, Project 2025 refers to climate change as merely a “perceived threat.” The playbook calls for increased oil and gas drilling, repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, reduced regulatory oversight on environmental matters, an end to various equity programs and more. 

Approximately $10.5 billion in new investments and nearly 13,900 jobs have been announced for Ohio under the Inflation Reduction Act through the end of July, according to a Climate Power report released this summer, placing Ohio among the top 10 states for job gains.

“We think it’s important to be able to bring some numbers to this conversation,” Orvis said.

Projected impacts

Energy Innovation’s forecast for Ohio projects that by 2030, Project 2025 would add $150 per year to households’ spending for energy, including electricity, heating and transportation. By 2035, that number would climb to more than $260 per year. 

Among other things, slashing energy efficiency programs for buildings and other sources of greenhouse gases would result in higher energy usage — and bills. Gutting programs to incentivize electric vehicles and relaxing fuel efficiency requirements would also result in more fossil fuel use than would otherwise be the case, Orvis explained. Extra expenses from increased energy usage would “more than offset” lower prices per unit for fuel that might result from expanded oil and gas development, the analysis said.

Ohio would also have roughly 21,200 fewer jobs by 2030 and that figure could double by 2035 if Project 2025 goes ahead, Energy Innovation calculated. That includes offsets from sectors that might grow under the conservative blueprint, including the oil and gas industry, Orvis said. 

Those offsetting job gains wouldn’t necessarily be filled by local workers. A large share of the direct jobs in oil and gas development for Ohio’s top-producing counties for natural gas have been held by crews that came in from elsewhere and left afterward. The Ohio River Valley Institute noted that and other factors in its work showing that Appalachian petroleum-producing counties have lagged economically.

In contrast, 70% of a solar project’s workforce must be Ohio residents if a developer and communities want to use a property-tax alternative that can give companies a break in a project’s early years but provide more revenue for counties on a steady basis over the life of a project. Local skilled workers also especially benefit from energy efficiency work.

With roughly $4.9 billion less in clean energy investments, Ohio’s greenhouse gas emissions would climb, the Energy Innovations analysis found. Sources in the state would emit roughly 9 million more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2030, compared to what they would under current federal policies. That figure would exceed 32 million metric tons in 2035. That’s comparable to the 2023 emissions from Ohio’s four largest coal plants, according to EPA data. 

Ohio is actually in the lower half of states for projected job losses and increased energy costs under the Project 2025 scenario, although it is among the top half for increased greenhouse gas emissions, Orvis said. What stood out most for him was the uniformity among all of the lower 48 states for which his team ran the numbers on Project 2025.

“Every state we looked at — every single one — there are net job losses and net GDP losses,” Orvis said.

Picking ‘winners and losers’

“It didn’t surprise me that you’re going to see costs increase” under Project 2025, along with job losses and impacts on gross domestic product, said Neil Waggoner, Midwest manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “The IRA and the infrastructure bill were not just to deal with climate and this immense crisis we all face, but also to do it in a way that supports American innovation, growth and the economy.”

In contrast, Project 2025 would “push forward an agenda that chooses winners and losers,” Waggoner said. “That’s fundamentally against innovation and growth and capitalism.” He also criticized Project 2025’s failure to consider the nuances of energy policy and forecast its impacts into the future.

“The end result is we’re going to pay more, and it’s going to have really bad impacts on the economy,” Waggoner said.

Uncertainty about federal rules on cross-state pollution made it difficult to calculate state-specific health impacts of Project 2025, Orvis said. The nationwide analysis projected we would see nearly 6,000 early deaths per year through 2030, compared to current policies. By 2050, that difference would be about 25,000 more early deaths each year under Project 2025 policies.

The work also didn’t drill down into which groups would be most affected by job losses, higher energy costs and so forth. But health impacts from pollution, higher energy burdens and higher poverty rates are already disproportionately high for historically underinvested communities.

“The impacts won’t be felt evenly across the board” if Project 2025 goes into effect, said Bishop Marcia Dinkins, founder of the Black Appalachian Coalition. “The tradeoff is always at the expense of marginalized people and people who are on fixed incomes.”

For people who are already struggling with high energy burdens and other issues, Project 2025 would be “a double economic blow,” Dinkins said. Prospects for health and the environment would also suffer, particularly given Ohio’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels and petrochemicals, she added.

“Without solutions around clean energy, it’s just going to make matters worse,” Dinkins said.

Project 2025 will raise Ohioans’ energy costs and cost the state jobs, report says is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have widely divergent views on education. In this photo, students are shown in a classroom. (Klaus Vedfelt | Getty Images)

This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.

As former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris sprint to the November finish line, one sprawling policy area has largely fallen out of the spotlight — education.

Though the respective GOP and Democratic presidential candidates have spent comparatively more time campaigning on issues such as immigration, foreign policy and the economy, their ideas surrounding K-12 and higher education vastly differ.

Trump’s education platform vows to “save American education,” with a focus on parental rights, universal school choice and a fight for “patriotic education” in schools.

“By increasing access to school choice, empowering parents to have a voice in their child’s education, and supporting good teachers, President Trump will improve academic excellence for all students,” Karoline Leavitt, Trump campaign national press secretary, said in a statement to States Newsroom.

Trump “believes students should be taught reading, writing, and math in the classroom — not gender, sex and race like the Biden Administration is pushing on our public school system,” Leavitt added.

Meanwhile, the Harris campaign has largely focused on the education investments brought by the Biden-Harris administration and building on those efforts if she is elected.

“Over the past four years, the Administration has made unprecedented investments in education, including the single-largest investment in K-12 education in history, which Vice President Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass,” Mia Ehrenberg, a campaign spokesperson, told States Newsroom.

Ehrenberg said that while Harris and her running mate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, “will build on those investments and continue fighting until every student has the support and the resources they need to thrive, Republicans led by Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda want to cut billions from local K-12 schools and eliminate the Department of Education, undermining America’s students and schools.”

Harris has repeatedly knocked the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — a sweeping conservative agenda that includes education policy proposals like eliminating Head Start, ending time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness and barring teachers from using a student’s preferred pronouns different from their “biological sex” without written permission from a parent or guardian.

Trump has fiercely disavowed Project 2025, although some former members of his administration crafted the blueprint.

Closing the U.S. Department of Education

Trump has called for shutting down the U.S. Department of Education and said he wants to “move education back to the states.” The department is not the main funding source for K-12 schools, as state and local governments allocate much of those dollars.

In contrast, Harris said at the Democratic National Convention in August that “we are not going to let him eliminate the Department of Education that funds our public schools.”

Living wage for school staff; parental bill of rights

Trump’s education plan calls for creating a “new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values, and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but to educate them.”

He also wants to implement funding boosts for schools that “abolish teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay,” establish the direct election of school principals by parents and “drastically cut” the number of school administrators.

In contrast, the Democratic Party’s 2024 platform calls for recruiting “more new teachers, paraprofessionals and school related personnel, and education support professionals, with the option for some to even start training in high school.”

The platform also aims to help “school-support staff to advance in their own careers with a living wage” and improve working conditions for teachers.

Trump also wants to give funding boosts to schools that adopt a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice.”

He’s threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach the primarily collegiate academic subject known as “critical race theory,” gender ideology or “other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”

The Democrats’ platform opposes “the use of private-school vouchers, tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education,” adding that “public tax dollars should never be used to discriminate.”

Title IX

Earlier this year, the Biden-Harris administration released a final rule for Title IX extending federal protections for LGBTQ+ students.

The updated regulations took effect Aug. 1, but a slew of GOP-led states challenged the measure. The legal battles have created a policy patchwork and weakened the administration’s vision for the final rule.

The updated regulations roll back Title IX changes made under the Trump administration and then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Trump vowed to terminate the updated regulations on his first day back in office if reelected.

Student debt and higher education 

Harris has repeatedly touted the administration’s record on student loan forgiveness, including nearly $170 billion in student debt relief for almost 5 million borrowers.

The administration’s most recent student loan repayment initiative came to a grinding halt in August after the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan.

Although little is mentioned about education in Harris’ extensive economic plan, the proposal makes clear that the veep will “continue working to end the unreasonable burden of student loan debt and fight to make higher education more affordable, so that college can be a ticket to the middle class.”

She also plans to cut four-year degree requirements for half a million federal jobs.

Trump — who dubbed the Biden-Harris administration’s student loan forgiveness efforts as “not even legal” — sought to repeal the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program during his administration.

His education platform also calls for endowing the “American Academy,” a free, online university.

Trump said he will endow the new institution through the “billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rivian Electric Delivery Vehicles (EDV) are seen connected to electric chargers during a launch event between Amazon and Rivian at an Amazon facility on July 21, 2022, in Chicago, Illinois. (Mustafa Hussain | Getty Images)

This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.

Highlighted in Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign as one of the major crises facing the country, climate change has received much less attention in the 2024 race for the presidency.

The candidates, Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, share the twin goals of lowering energy costs and increasing U.S. jobs in the sector, but diverge widely in their plans to get there.

On the campaign trail, each has spent relatively little time detailing their own plans, instead criticizing the other as extreme.

Harris favors an expansion of renewable energy, which supplies power without the carbon emissions that are the primary driver of climate change.

She has touted her tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the broad domestic policy law Democrats pushed through along party lines that includes hundreds of millions in clean-energy tax credits.

Trump supports fossil fuel production, blaming policies to support renewable energy for rising energy prices. He has called for removing prohibitions on new oil and gas exploration to increase the supply of cheap fuel and reduce costs.

Promise: Promote fossil fuels

Both candidates promise to lower the cost of energy.

For Trump, that has involved hammering the Biden-Harris administration for encouraging renewable energy production.

Inflation was caused by “stupid spending for the Green New Deal, which was a green new scam, it turned out,” Trump said at a Sept. 26 press conference. “Do you notice that they never mention anything about environment anymore? What happened to the environment?”

The former president said at a Sept. 25 campaign stop he would “cut your energy [costs] in half,” by reducing regulations and cutting taxes.

He has not produced a detailed plan to achieve that goal.

Implicit in Trump’s argument is that the Biden administration’s focus on renewable energy has hampered oil and gas production, limiting supply and driving up prices.

But Harris has presented her support for renewable energy modes as part of a broader portfolio that includes fossil fuels.

Harris has highlighted the Inflation Reduction Act opened up new leases for oil and gas production while providing incentives for wind and solar power.

“I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels,” she said at a Sept. 10 ABC News debate with Trump.

A report this month from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that U.S. fossil fuel production reached an all-time high in 2023.

Promise: Promote renewables

Harris has also pointed to provisions of the IRA that provide consumers with tax benefits for green technology, such as home heat pumps, as a way to bring down costs.

“Thanks to tax credits on home energy technologies in the Inflation Reduction Act, more than 3.4 million American families saved $8.4 billion in 2023,” her campaign’s 82-page economic plan reads.

Trump also says he supports some climate-conscious technology, including megadonor Elon Musk’s Tesla brand of electric vehicles, but that Democrats have overinvested in non-fossil fuels.

He has called elements of the Inflation Reduction Act “giveaways,” and has singled out spending on electric vehicle charging infrastructure as wasteful.

Promise: Restore jobs

Biden has long talked about a transition away from fossil fuels as a benefit to U.S. workers, positioning them on the cutting edge of a growing industry.

Harris has similarly framed the issue in economic terms, saying the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate policies have created jobs.

“We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have been vice president,” she said at the Sept. 10 debate. “We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world.”

At a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this month, Harris said Trump’s focus on fossil fuels would hamper job growth, saying he would “send thousands of good-paying clean energy jobs overseas.”

Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, have said Democrats’ focus on renewable energy sources has limited existing energy jobs.

“We’ve got great energy workers in Ohio and all across our country,” Vance said at an August campaign stop in his home state. “They want to earn a reasonable wage and they want to power the American economy. Why don’t we have a president that lets them do exactly that?

“Unleash American energy,” he said. “Drill, baby, drill and let’s turn the page on this craziness.”

Promise: Repeal Democrats’ climate law

Trump has had harsh words for Democrats’ climate law, blaming its spending for rising inflation.

“To further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam. Greatest scam in history, probably,” he told the Economic Club of New York in a Sept. 5 speech.

He said as president he would redirect any unspent funds in the law.

Trump has sought to distance himself from the policy blueprint Project 2025, written by the Heritage Institute.

But there is some overlap between what the conservative think tank has laid out and what Trump said he plans to do in a second term in the White House.

Project 2025 calls for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, describing it as a subsidy to special interests.

Harris often mentions her tie-breaking vote for the law and has described her plans as president to expand on the law’s objectives.

Harris’ policy plan said she “proudly cast” the tie-breaking vote for the climate bill and that, as president, she would “continue to invest in a thriving clean energy economy.”

She added she would seek to improve that spending by cutting regulations “so that clean energy projects are completed quickly and efficiently in a manner that protects our environment and public health.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Advocates in Ohio are stepping up their clean energy efforts in response to the Republican party platform and Project 2025, which detail how a second Trump administration would promote fossil fuels while cutting back federal programs for addressing climate change, environmental justice and equity.

Over the past year, Ohio-based governments and groups have won awards for hundreds of millions of dollars under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

Federal policy takes on added significance in a state like Ohio, where lawmakers have already placed extra hurdles in the way of clean energy development. That has left it up to local governments and private organizations to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of that work did move ahead during the former Trump administration, said Mike Foley, director of sustainability for Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland. But, “we had to scramble and struggle to get projects done.”

“Having resources from the federal government makes things so much easier,” Foley said.

Just this week, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a grant of roughly $129 million to a partnership among Cuyahoga County and the cities of Cleveland and Painesville to build a 35 megawatt solar power facility and 10 megawatts of battery storage, and to shut down a coal-fired power plant.

Earlier in July, the Federal Transit Authority awarded a $10.6 million grant under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for ten electric buses and chargers for low-income, high-ridership areas. More than $40 million will go to other projects in Ohio. 

“These dollars are changing communities for the better,” said Chris Tavenor, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund.

Project 2025 — a policy blueprint for a possible Trump presidency produced by the Heritage Foundation — calls for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, threatening funding for additional work in Ohio and elsewhere, as well as weakening environmental protections and programs to promote equity. While former President Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, he has multiple links to authors and editors of the roughly 900-page report, and has repeatedly pledged to end Biden energy policies he has dubbed the “green new scam.”

“This is getting rid of everything that’s moved the needle forward on climate and energy,” said Neil Waggoner, the Midwest manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal program. 

While it’s unclear whether who will win in November, advocates are nonetheless preparing for a potential Trump presidency now.

Maximizing gains

The GOP platform and Project 2025 make clear what types of energy policies to expect if there’s a change in administration, said Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club.

“It’s in black and white,” Pierce said. So now, the Sierra Club is focusing on how to “Trump-proof the gains we have made.”

One push is to help local officials identify and apply for funding opportunities that are available now. “We don’t want to leave that money on the table,” Pierce said, adding that once money is in hand it “buys a lot of goodwill and inertia.”

That goodwill might limit the extent to which federal lawmakers would scale back programs bringing money to their states, according to conservative clean energy advocates who met at the Republican National Convention last week. Others are also collaborating with partners to get money for projects in hand as soon as possible.

“We are taking a proactive approach to reach out to funders to secure funding to continue the work and advocacy for energy, climate and environmental justice,” said SeMia Bray, co-leader for Black Environmental Leaders, which collaborates with regional partners to provide resources and support for environmental and economic justice initiatives.

Jonathan Welle, executive director for Cleveland Owns, said his organization plans to apply this summer for a “substantial federal grant that would put money in the hands of longtime northeast Ohio communities, specifically Black and Brown communities, so they can chart their own energy future.” 

Welle said he’s not at liberty to discuss the proposed project’s details, but did say the group expects it would hear about grant awards late this year or in early 2025. 

“But the timing for that and the follow through from the federal government…is highly dependent on the next few political moves, including November’s election,” he added.

Work to secure federal funding didn’t just spring up overnight, though. The Reimagine Appalachia coalition has been working for several years with stakeholders in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania to build capacity to absorb and direct that funding. Periodic information sessions spotlight funding opportunities and promote networking for local governments or others to develop ideas for projects. There’s even a forthcoming “grant of the month club” event.

“It’s really important to be doing this work and making sure that this current opportunity is taken advantage of,” said Amanda Woodrum, one of Reimagine Appalachia’s co-directors.

At the same time, she warned against speeding up the process too quickly.

“It takes time to put the infrastructure in place to actually direct it and make sure [funding] doesn’t go to the same old political channels,” Woodrum explained.

Going too quickly also increases the risk of backlash if projects aren’t well thought out, don’t provide what people in communities want, or otherwise fail.

“You don’t want it to go sideways,” Woodrum said. “You want to make sure you do it right.”

Getting the word out

Messaging is another top priority for advocates as the fall election draws near.  

“We are continuing our efforts of voter education, making sure the communities we love and support have updated registration and understand the importance of this election, and all elections on the local level,” Bray said.

Volunteers for Save Ohio Parks have been trying to limit drilling and fracking under state-owned parks and wildlife areas since early 2023, and now face the possibility of more drilling and fossil fuel development under a possible Republican administration.

“Yet Save Ohio Parks is determined to stay positive and keep our eyes on the prize,” said Melinda Zemper, a member of the group’s steering committee. The group is expanding its volunteer base and building additional coalitions with other environmental groups in Ohio.

Advocates also want to get out the word about benefits from current federal programs so voters are aware of what’s at stake.

“The Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund will continue its work to emphasize how the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and other important federal programs benefit Ohio communities and help combat the causes of climate change,” Tavenor said. Without continued progress, climate change costs for Ohioans will get worse, he noted.

Messaging by the Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund and other advocates also highlights the implications of Project 2025 for equity and democracy.

“Project 2025’s extreme proposals are specifically structured to benefit polluting industries at the expense of the health and environment of our communities,” Tavenor said. “Simply put, Project 2025 is a government takeover that threatens our democracy, designed by wealthy billionaires to benefit themselves and their power-hungry allies.”

Ohio advocates seek to ‘Trump-proof’ recent gains made on clean energy and climate is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Editor’s note: No Republicans voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. A previous version of this story incorrectly reported that fact.

Nestled under a glass dome between a humid tropical jungle and a surreal cactus landscape during the Republican National Convention last week, Republican leaders extolled a glowing clean energy future for America, and avoided mentioning nominee Donald J. Trump. 

Their message — delivered at Milwaukee’s Mitchell Park Domes botanical garden — was notably different from the tune a few miles away in the Fiserv Forum, where RNC speakers such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum called for American “energy dominance” based on fossil fuels.

Trump, in his speech the final night of the convention, promised to “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one” and railed against the “green new scam” — pledges echoed in the Republican party’s platform — to loud cheers. 

In interviews with the Energy News Network, Republican leaders dismissed Trump’s frequent demonization of solar, wind and electric vehicles as empty rhetoric and expressed optimism that if elected, he would embrace the job-creation and innovation potential of clean energy.

“I think he’s been tougher on mandates,” said Utah Rep. John Curtis, who is on the U.S. Senate ballot for November. “A lot of my colleagues feel like [energy] should be more market-based-driven, and I feel the same way. This should be market-driven.”

Advocates at the event from across the political spectrum also emphasized the role of states and Congress in promoting clean energy, in lieu of support from the president.

Trump’s antipathy to renewables “does give pause to those who are advocates for clean energy and wanting to address climate change,” said Heather Reams, president of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a nonprofit organization that works to engage with Republicans. 

“However, there are two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — there’s the executive branch, and then there’s Congress. We’ve been spending a lot of time over the last decade working with members of Congress who are much more engaged on climate and advocacy and acceleration of clean energy. And that’s different than it was in 2016, when there was very little engagement on climate” from Republican lawmakers.

But it’s debatable whether Republican lawmakers are engaging on climate now. No Republican senators or House members voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, arguably the nation’s largest clean energy bill ever. And while the House Republican Climate Caucus has 83 members, many are ardent fossil-fuel boosters, and environmental advocates question the group’s seriousness.

Trump’s first term saw rollbacks to federal regulations governing waste from coal plants, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, revocation of California’s ability to set stricter tailpipe emission standards, relaxed standards on oil and gas extraction, and much more. In a 2021 analysis, the New York Times counted 28 air pollution and emissions rules that Trump successfully reversed, and 12 related to drilling and fossil fuel extraction. 

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation policy agenda Trump has distanced himself from but is promoted by prominent backers, seeks to significantly undercut the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including by reducing the number of industries required to report emissions. The document refers to climate change as a “perceived threat” and routinely characterizes federal agencies’ work on climate as a politically motivated distraction.

Nonetheless, Reams said she’s hopeful Trump won’t seek to dismantle programs and incentives passed during the Biden administration, as he has pledged to do.  

“We still have governors that are benefiting from a lot of the laws that have been passed” under Biden, she said. “Congress took those votes. They’re supportive of all the economic development that’s coming into their districts. So I think there’s going to be a little bit more of a scalpel than a sledgehammer approach to some of the legislation that was passed” if Trump wins.

Invenergy president Jim Murphy said he would hope to appeal to Trump as a businessman.

“We’re here to share with them what we’re doing as a company, and as an industry, to complete this energy transition the responsible way,” he told the Energy News Network. “There’s no doubt it’s been started, so to do it in the right way. One thing that we’re observing is that the goals and the objectives of the groups are not that different. It seems we have a lot more common ground than people might think.” 

Michigan Conservative Energy Forum executive director Ed Rivet watched the RNC from afar, and noted all the blame heaped on Biden for rising gasoline prices.    

“All of that is fully expected rhetoric for these sorts of events, you’re sometimes throwing out red-meat soundbites,” Rivet said. “But the more important thing for the future if there’s a second Trump administration is, are they going to promote technology being the response to demand for climate action. Because demand for climate action is not going to go away just because we change administrations.”   

Rivet said Republicans — and Democrats — should prioritize competing with China on battery and other clean energy technology development and manufacturing.   

“The RNC is missing an opportunity to say, ‘Our response to climate is going to be unleashing the power of technology in America like no other country can do,’” he said. “Let’s build the best technology in the world. The RNC is missing the opportunity to punch right at the core of how do we really respond to our circumstances.” 

Ryan Huebsch, executive director of the Wisconsin Conservative Energy Forum, also skipped the convention and said he has resisted delving into the official GOP platform. But he is hopeful about conservative leadership on clean energy, citing the expansion of wind power in Iowa under Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, a delegate at the Republican convention. Between 2017 — when Reynolds took office — and 2022, the state’s wind power grew from 37% to 62% of its net generation, ranking second nationwide behind Texas in wind capacity.    

“They’re exporting wind energy everywhere,” Huebsch said. “Hopefully Wisconsin can be an exporter of clean and renewable energy too. We’d like to see a mix of some of President Biden’s current strategies, and see where we can come in with Trump (if he is elected). Hopefully there’s some middle ground there.” 

Polling shows little concern about climate among Republicans. A March report from Pew Research Center noted that only 12% of Republicans felt climate change should be a top priority for Congress and the president, and only 23% see it as a major threat to the country. 

Indeed, conservative clean energy proponents prefer to tout the job creation, energy independence and individual lifestyle benefits of clean energy, as opposed to the climate implications. 

Katie Bowen, a volunteer at the Republican convention and former staffer for Colorado Republican legislators, lamented that she had to give up her beloved electric vehicle when she moved to Colorado from Las Vegas. She considered Colorado “as granola as you get,” but was surprised to find few charging stations. She also became frustrated that Colorado was not doing more to promote nuclear energy, including as a way to power new data centers.

“How in the U.S. can we not only make energy clean, efficient and renewable, but also how do we power our own technology” — especially new data centers, she said. “Conservatives not only need to accept, but also get behind the whole thing of conservation is not just a political issue. It’s an everyone issue. It’s an American issue.”

Conservative clean energy advocates keep Trump’s rhetoric at arm’s length is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.