President Trump’s Executive Order 14154 dated January 20, 2025, titled Unleashing American Energy represents a major shift in U.S. energy policy. It establishes that the country will prioritize energy production and exploration on federal lands and waters, while eliminating mandates like those supporting electric vehicles. The order directs heads of federal departments to review regulations that burden domestic energy production and implement action plans to rescind or revise such measures.
In doing so, EO 14154 overturns several of President Biden’s executive orders on energy and the environment, specifically targeting policies like the Green New Deal. Additionally, it mandates the expedited approval of projects deemed essential to the national economy or security, while instructing the Department of Energy (DOE) to revisit liquefied natural gas (LNG) export applications and identify agency actions imposing unnecessary burdens on domestic mining.
The order also takes the unprecedented step of pausing federal funding disbursements under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Within 90 days, federal agencies are required to review their grant and loan processes to ensure alignment with the order’s policy goals.
This pause has left recipients and applicants of IRA and BIL funding uncertain about the future of these critical programs. While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum clarifying that the funding freeze applies only to projects implicated by EO 14154, it also gives agency heads the discretion to disburse funds after consulting with the OMB. This ambiguity has raised significant legal and constitutional questions.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) firmly establishes Congress' "power of the purse," limiting the ability of the President or other government officials to unilaterally alter or withhold appropriated funds. The Supreme Court, in Train v. City of New York, confirmed that even without the ICA, the President cannot unilaterally impound funds appropriated by Congress. These legal frameworks are now being tested as agencies navigate the order’s implications.
The potential impact of EO 14154 on the DOE’s carbon removal funding initiatives, such as the Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase Pilot Program, remains unclear. However, while federal support may waver, state-led initiatives and bipartisan support for carbon removal solutions offer a pathway to continued progress.
California, New York, and Massachusetts are leading by example with innovative carbon removal policies. Programs like California’s Cap-and-Trade system and New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act demonstrate how legally binding climate goals and market-based funding mechanisms can drive measurable progress. These states have shown that ambition, when paired with accountability, can set the stage for long-term success.
Despite political transitions, CDR policies have gained traction across party lines due to their demonstrated economic benefits. For example, the 45Q tax credit and the establishment of direct air capture (DAC) hubs have created thousands of jobs nationwide. The U.S. now accounts for over 35% of global CDR jobs, underscoring the economic and workforce opportunities of scaling these technologies.
Federal programs like the IRA and BIL have provided essential funding for cutting-edge CDR technologies, such as DAC and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, it is increasingly important to frame these solutions not just as moral imperatives but as pragmatic tools for economic growth and disaster prevention. This shift in messaging could resonate more broadly and sustain support even amidst federal policy changes.
Nature-based solutions offer dual benefits: they capture carbon while simultaneously enhancing local ecosystems and livelihoods. States like Massachusetts and California provide excellent examples through wetland restoration and sustainable agriculture projects. These initiatives not only address carbon emissions but also offer practical solutions for wildfire mitigation, flood protection, and other disaster prevention efforts.
Bipartisan support for economically beneficial CDR initiatives has the potential to buffer against federal policy rollbacks. For example, DAC hubs in traditionally Republican-leaning states like Texas and Louisiana enjoy strong local support, demonstrating that economic incentives can foster consensus regardless of political affiliation.
Collaborations between public institutions and private companies are proving essential for accelerating innovation in carbon removal. States partnering with climate tech startups to scale innovative solutions could unlock job opportunities, spur economic growth, and advance carbon removal efforts on a broader scale.
Transparent reporting systems and measurable progress metrics are critical for building public trust and ensuring the effectiveness of CDR policies. Accountability at every stage will be vital for driving long-term success and maintaining public and political support.
The convergence of state innovation, federal policy, and economic incentives creates a strong foundation for a cohesive national carbon removal strategy. By prioritizing local benefits, equity, and economic resilience and opportunities, policymakers can ensure a balanced approach to addressing both immediate disaster mitigation and long-term climate goals.
Learning from state-level leadership, fostering bipartisan collaboration, and expanding public-private partnerships will be key to advancing a comprehensive carbon removal strategy. This path forward not only promises economic and environmental benefits but also paves the way for a sustainable and resilient future for communities across the United States.