In his second term, Donald Trump is doubling down on competition with China across most sectors — except one glaring exception: clean energy. Here, he’s effectively ceded ground to Beijing.
The European edition of Politico reveals the Trump administration’s calculated retreat from the clean energy race, pivoting instead to America’s traditional energy strongholds — oil, natural gas, and coal. This pivot has ignited heated battles within the Republican Party, especially over the "Big Beautiful Bill Act," a legislative effort aimed at dismantling Biden’s clean energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
Trump’s team views China as the undisputed leader in global supply chains for batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines. Their logic? Pouring more US resources into green tech only fuels China’s rise. This zero-sum mindset marks a sharp departure from Trump’s first term, which embraced a more diversified energy approach. Daniel Simmons, an Energy Department official from Trump’s first administration, bluntly states this government "does not care" about clean energy. Within days of his January inauguration, Trump halted IRA funding via executive order and dismissed Biden’s green investments as a "green scam."
Chris Wright, United States Secretary of Energy, a fossil fuel stalwart and former oil magnate who helped unleash the shale gas revolution through fracking, has doubled down on this fossil-first agenda. Recently, he championed an "Energy Freedom Task Force" in Eastern Europe, urging countries like Poland to lean into fossil fuels and nuclear power. He insists fossil fuels are vital for lifting developing countries out of poverty, and dismisses the climate crisis urgency, arguing, “Nothing in the data shows climate change is the world’s most urgent problem.”
Meanwhile, Chinese clean energy titans BYD and CATL continue to outpace the US technologically. Their breakthroughs, such as EV batteries that can charge in five minutes and deliver 400–500 kilometers, underscore America’s growing lag in clean tech. The Trump administration’s rollback of clean energy subsidies threatens to cost American jobs. The IRA’s incentives could generate roughly 160,000 jobs, especially in Republican strongholds like the Sun Belt and Rust Belt. Former Australian diplomat Thom Woodroofe accuses Trump’s team of deliberately stalling clean energy progress, undermining US employment. Research from Johns Hopkins University warns that scrapping subsidies would collapse the planned $50 billion solar and battery export market by 2030, creating an $80 billion investment void that other countries will fill.
Within the GOP, fractures over the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" are widening. Hardliners push for a full repeal of green subsidies, while moderates worry about the economic fallout in local communities. The Rhodium Group think tank cautions that cutting subsidies could stifle next-gen nuclear and geothermal innovation, eroding America’s technological edge.
The takeaway? The global energy transition demands cooperation, not unilateralism. China has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to green transformation, urging developed nations to honour their climate pledges. It warns that protectionism and isolationism only harm shared global interests.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump has just signed an executive order on Monday (July 7) locally, sending letters to 14 countries extending the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" 90-day grace period, postponing the original July 9 deadline to August 1. With Trump's tariff threats looming over global commerce, a bold Canadian academic is making waves by suggesting the unthinkable: kick the United States out of the World Trade Organization entirely. It's a radical idea that's got people talking; frankly, it might not be as crazy as it sounds.
The Case for Calling America's Bluff
Professor Kristen Hopewell from the University of British Columbia (UBC) isn't mincing words. Writing in Politico Europe just as Trump was threatening to slap 50% tariffs on EU goods, she's arguing that the US has essentially become a "rogue state on trade" that's making a mockery of the entire global trading system.
Professor Kristen Hopewell from the University of British Columbia, Canada, published an article calling on member countries to kick the US out of the WTO to save the global economy.
The timing couldn't be more dramatic. Trump’s grace period to August 1 is nothing more than classic Trump theater, really. But Hopewell's point stands: this isn't just about one president's trade tantrums anymore. It's about whether the international trading system can survive when its most powerful member basically ignores all the rules.
The article notes that as early as Trump's first term, he vigorously promoted unilateral and trade protectionist policies, and his criticism of international organizations including the WTO and WHO has never ceased. As an organization that arbitrates trade disputes, the WTO has long been bound and constrained by the US.
Her argument is pretty straightforward when you think about it. The US has already paralyzed the WTO's appeals mechanism by blocking appointments to the Appellate Body. They've been trampling on international trade rules left and right. Remember the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act? So, no wonder why countries and scholars are bringing up the question: why should they get to keep enjoying all the benefits of WTO membership while acting like a bull in a china shop?
According to Article 10 of the Marrakesh Agreement regarding amendment provisions, if two-thirds of members vote to amend the agreement, the US can be expelled.
How You Actually Kick Someone Out of the WTO
Lets take another closer look from the legal perspective. The WTO doesn't exactly have a "you're expelled" button, but Hopewell points out there's a workaround through Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement. Basically, if two-thirds of WTO members vote to amend the agreement, they could theoretically boot the US out. If America refuses to accept the amendment, it would take a three-quarters majority.
It's never been done before, but then again, we've never had a situation quite like this either. We're talking about a complete abandonment of the post-war trading order that America itself helped create.
WTO members must unite to clearly reject Trump's trade aggression and indicate that this is intolerable, and the only way to maintain the system is to expel or suspend the US's WTO membership.
The Economic Reality Check
Now, you might think losing the US would kill the WTO, but Hopewell makes a compelling counterargument. American trade only accounts for about one-tenth of global trade, and the system could actually function better without a member that's constantly breaking the rules and encouraging others to do the same.
Think about it this way: if Trump can impose massive tariffs with impunity, why should anyone else follow WTO rules? The real danger isn't just America's protectionism - it's the contagion effect where other countries start thinking they can break the rules too.
Without WTO membership, the US would lose access to preferential tariffs, face unlimited punitive measures from other countries, and lose the intellectual property protections that underpin much of its high-tech dominance. That's some serious economic leverage right there.
The Bigger Picture: A World Without America?
Hopewell's proposal isn't just about punishment - it's about calling Trump's bluff. The president has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the WTO anyway, so why not beat him to the punch? Strip away the membership benefits, make America an "international pariah" on trade, and suddenly those tariff threats might not look so appealing to American businesses.
The scholar argues that supporters of multilateral trade need to fight back and defend the system rather than just hoping Trump will eventually come around. With the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism already crippled by US obstruction, maybe it's time for the rest of the world to move forward without America.
It's a bold gambit, and there's no guarantee it would work. But as global trade teeters on the edge of a cliff, perhaps extraordinary times really do call for extraordinary measures.
