Former President Donald Trump is making bold claims as he campaigns for a potential return to the White House, including a promise to cut energy costs in half within 18 months of taking office. Trump unveiled his vision during a recent rally, emphasizing his commitment to energy independence and calling for the revival of policies from his first term. However, energy experts and economists are skeptical about the feasibility of such a sweeping reduction in such a short timeframe.
The Promise: Energy Independence and Lower Costs
Trump’s energy plan centers on a return to policies he championed during his presidency. These include expanding domestic oil and gas production, streamlining permitting processes for energy projects, and rolling back regulations he claims stifle the energy sector. He also reaffirmed his support for fracking and promised to reinstate the Keystone XL pipeline, a project canceled by President Joe Biden.
Speaking to supporters, Trump declared, “We will unleash American energy like never before. Within 18 months, your energy bills will be cut in half.” He framed the plan as not only an economic boost but also a way to enhance national security by reducing reliance on foreign energy.
The Challenges: A Complex Market
While the promise of slashing energy costs is politically appealing, experts warn that Trump’s timeline is overly optimistic. Energy prices are influenced by a global market that the U.S. cannot fully control, including factors like geopolitical conflicts, natural disasters, and shifts in supply and demand.
“It’s not as simple as flipping a switch,” said Mark Finley, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “Even with significant increases in domestic production, global energy markets are interconnected. Prices are affected by factors far beyond the control of any one administration.”
Moreover, significant investments in infrastructure projects like pipelines take years to complete, meaning their impact on energy prices would be delayed well beyond Trump’s proposed 18-month window.
The Criticism: Economic and Environmental Concerns
Critics also argue that Trump’s plan lacks consideration for the transition to renewable energy, which has gained momentum under the Biden administration. Environmental advocates warn that doubling down on fossil fuels could exacerbate climate change and stall progress on cleaner energy alternatives.
“Trump’s plan is rooted in the past,” said Leah Stokes, an environmental policy expert at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are becoming more cost-competitive and sustainable. Ignoring them in favor of fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the environment—it’s short-sighted economically.”
Additionally, cutting energy prices in half could have unintended consequences for producers, who rely on stable prices to justify investments in exploration and production.
Political Implications
Trump’s promise has resonated with his base, particularly in energy-producing states where jobs and economic growth are closely tied to the oil and gas industry. Supporters argue that Trump’s focus on deregulation and energy independence is a welcome contrast to Biden’s climate-focused agenda, which they blame for higher energy costs.
Still, independent voters and suburban communities, which have increasingly embraced clean energy, may find Trump’s plan less appealing.
The Bottom Line
While Trump’s promise to halve energy costs in 18 months is a powerful campaign message, its feasibility remains highly uncertain. Experts point to the complexities of global energy markets, infrastructure timelines, and the need for a balanced energy policy that incorporates renewables.
As the 2024 campaign heats up, energy policy will likely remain a key battleground, with Trump doubling down on traditional fossil fuels and his Democratic rivals advocating for a cleaner energy future. Whether Trump’s bold claims can translate into reality—or even win over undecided voters—remains to be seen.