In his early days in office, President Donald Trump moved aggressively to dismantle climate and environmental policies. His administration began rolling back numerous regulations, targeting agencies that enforce them, and aiming to reduce their staffing.
Trump argues these actions will cut compliance costs, boosting business growth. A White House fact sheet explains that “overregulation stops American entrepreneurship, crushes small businesses, reduces consumer choice, discourages innovation, and infringes on the liberties of American citizens.”
Many businesses, especially smaller firms that feel the weight of high compliance costs, may welcome these changes. However, the speed and scope of the deregulation efforts come at a cost—not just in terms of emissions reduction. Companies depend on stable policy environments to plan investments and grow, and right now, businesses involved in climate and energy are facing significant uncertainty.
Despite the financial challenges posed by this uncertainty, most companies are hesitant to speak out publicly, even as they privately express concern. Executives are learning to stay quiet for fear of further retaliation from the administration, which can target specific companies.
Yet, in regulatory filings—where businesses must disclose risks—they are acknowledging the financial consequences of policy shifts. Ford Motor Company lists climate policy changes as a “legal and regulatory risk” in its filings. Bank of America notes the “divergent views of stakeholders” on climate policies, warning of “heightened legal and compliance risk” in the climate space. Dow Chemical identifies climate change as a key risk, including potential shifts in public opinion and political leadership, which could affect government incentives and tax credits for emission reductions.
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, following the election, stressed the need for more stability. “The polarization and political back-and-forth that we see in [the U.S.] is not good for the country, not good for society. It’s frankly not good for business,” he told Semafor. “What we need is more thoughtful, consistent regulation.”
Even changes that seem beneficial to businesses, such as faster energy infrastructure permitting, carry risks. For instance, rapid permitting may be hindered if key staff are laid off. More importantly, many of Trump’s executive actions will likely face legal challenges, and the resulting delays create further uncertainty. While companies wait for court outcomes, they are unsure of how to allocate funds effectively.
In his first week in office, I pointed out the complexities of Trump’s anti-climate agenda—particularly how it will clash with market realities. But it’s also clear that, given the urgency of climate change, even slowing down the market can have significant effects, delaying progress on the green transition.