Isaac Wieder (He/Him) 

Fordham Environmental Law Review 26’

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, enacted under the Biden Administration, was a significant piece of legislation addressing climate change, healthcare, and tax reform. To mitigate inflation through long-term investments in the energy transition, the IRA allocated billions of dollars in clean energy incentives and tax credits, including the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit, in support of support solar, wind, and other renewable energy projects. Almost immediately after Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, he vowed to repeal the IRA, rolling back many of the tax credits in favor of reviving the U.S. oil and gas industry, limiting the costs associated with incentives for renewables investment, and focusing on energy independence as a national security priority. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order suspending all IRA funding disbursements. He considered redirecting surge monies to build charging stations and affordable EVs towards national defense spending without directly killing the bill. However, despite the administration’s hostile stance towards the IRA, the clean energy subsidies and incentives may prove difficult, if not impossible, to fully dismantle. According to an analysis by the Smith School at Oxford University, many of the IRA’s pro-investment provisions have driven economic momentum that would be challenging to reverse. Billions in private investment have poured into renewable energy infrastructure, from wind and solar expansion to energy storage technologies, securing long-term contracts and creating noticeable job growth spanning multiple states, including Republican-led ones. Rolling back these benefits would likely face immense political pushback, particularly from industries, workers, and local economies that have begun reaping the rewards.

Additionally, while Trump’s executive order can and will slow IRA funding disbursements, many tax credits and incentives are structured in a way that makes them difficult to unwind without new legislation. As the Conservation Law Foundation emphasized, efforts to repeal or gut the IRA could run into legal challenges, particularly where private entities have already made binding investments based on the assumption that these incentives would remain in place. Furthermore, formally revoking the IRA would require congressional approval, an uphill battle given the expected pushback from lawmakers representing districts that benefit from clean energy projects. The administration may try to weaken the IRA through more indirect measures, such as limiting eligibility for tax credits, introducing regulatory barriers, or diverting federal agency priorities away from enforcement. There is also speculation that the administration could redirect funds toward fossil fuel projects or use legislative riders to curtail the IRA’s effectiveness. However, as IRA-backed projects are already underway in various stages of production, with contracts signed and capital deployed, it will be legally and logistically complex to stop or redirect them without triggering the accompanying financial and legal consequences. Ultimately, while a partial repeal may appear on the horizon, the future of the Inflation Reduction Act under this administration remains uncertain. Regardless of the current political maneuvering, market forces, corporate commitments, and state-level initiatives will likely continue to drive the transition toward renewables, making a full-scale rollback of the IRA more complex than Trump’s administration may have anticipated.