Contrasting Energy Policies: Trump and Biden
The late philosopher and former New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once remarked, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” While that statement originally related to baseball, it feels relevant now in light of the Trump administration’s recent cancellation of offshore wind projects along the East Coast, especially when compared to Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline.
On the surface, these two decisions may appear completely different. One promotes renewable energy, while the other leans toward fossil fuels. However, both are fundamentally political choices that can erode confidence in the energy sector, jeopardize jobs, and ultimately affect our country’s energy security. Workers and companies in the energy field—whether involved in gas pipelines, oil exploration, or wind farm construction—thrive on predictability.
Others share these concerns. Recently, Shell USA President Colette Hirstius criticized the Trump administration’s choice to halt fully permitted wind projects, labeling it as “extremely damaging” to investment. She called for more consistent regulatory practices, emphasizing that energy projects with the right permits should move forward.
In 2020, I was part of the Biden campaign because I valued his practical approach to legislation. Despite my agreement with him on a number of issues, I felt that Biden’s decision to axe the Keystone XL pipeline was more about symbolism than substance. It’s clear that no single energy initiative can solve every problem, but Keystone XL represented an essential investment for our energy security, having undergone years of environmental assessments and planning. Canceling it was a mistake.
Similarly, a number of offshore wind projects, like Revolution Wind off the Rhode Island coast—currently in development—have also gone through extensive reviews and approvals. Companies invested billions in planning, workforce training, and supply chain management. Many U.S. workers—welders, steelworkers, engineers, and electricians—depended on these initiatives for stable jobs.
Halting energy projects once they are underway could not only postpone the arrival of new energy sources but also challenge the foundations of business practices in this country. Why would companies risk their resources on future energy infrastructure if approved projects can be abruptly canceled with a government shift? This leads to stagnation.
We are living in a time marked by rising energy demands and geopolitical uncertainties. Families cope with soaring energy costs due to supply challenges and overregulation. The answer lies in tapping into all available domestic energy resources.
A sensible approach would be to avoid picking favorites among energy sources and instead adopt an “all of the above” policy that maximizes all our energy options: oil, gas, nuclear, solar, hydropower, and wind. America should aim to produce more energy, not less. The cancellations of both Keystone XL and offshore wind projects undermine that broader vision. Rather than enhancing production capacity and diversifying supply, we’ve reduced our potential.
For decades, the U.S. energy debate has been framed as a zero-sum game—pitting oil and gas against renewables, coal jobs against clean tech, pipelines against wind turbines—with activists and industry constantly at odds. In truth, these divisive choices do little to advance our collective energy, environmental, and economic interests. We need to embrace every possible source of American energy.
An “all of the above” strategy is economically wise and politically sound. Voters grow weary of the constant oscillation between opposing sides; they want neither energy shortages nor power outages. They seek energy independence, a promise that President Trump pressed during his campaign. America should be a leader, not a follower. And the people want jobs—whether that’s building a nuclear reactor, working in an oil field, or assembling wind turbines.
Ultimately, canceling Keystone XL was a mistake, as was discontinuing the wind projects that were authorized, funded, and in the works. If we truly want to establish energy supremacy, such errors are simply not viable for Americans moving forward.
