Trump executive order seeks end to wind and solar energy subsidies
In an executive order, Trump said the renewable energy resources were unreliable, expensive, displaced more dependable energy sources, were dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains and were harmful to the natural environment and electric grid.
The order directs the Treasury department to enforce the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects that were rolled back in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Trump last week.
It also directs the Interior department to review and revise any policies that favor renewables over other energy sources.
Both agencies are required to submit a report to the White House within 45 days detailing actions taken.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act effectively ends renewable energy tax credits after 2026 if projects have not started construction. Wind and solar projects whose construction starts after that must be placed in service by the end of 2027. Under previous law, project developers would have been able to claim a 30% tax credit through 2032.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump haters Joy Reid and Jim Acosta share most outlandish theory yet about what president will do next
Joy Reid and Jim Acosta - two of Donald Trump 's most prominent haters forced into exile by liberal MSNBC and CNN - have now predicted the president will rig the 2026 midterms. Reid, who was let go by MSNBC in February, said it was foolish for Democrats 'to just assume we're going to have normal elections next year.' She sees the Republican Party's unification behind Trump's signature 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' as signs that they don't fear being voted out of Congress. 'To me, the fact that Republicans are still voting for the bill tells me that they're not actually worried about being reelected,' Reid told Wajahat Ali on his Substack. 'The way Trump is behaving, he's not acting like somebody who worries that his party will lose power or that even if the party, even if somehow we had normal elections and Democrats took control of either House … he's not acting like somebody who's worried about the consequences of that.' She added that Trump's ultimate goal is lifetime rule over the United States. 'I don't think Trump intends to leave office. I'm very clear about that. I think he intends stay in office like Putin till he dies. I think it's going to take an extraordinary movement to get rid of him.' Acosta - who left CNN in January - was speaking on his own Substack to long-time Democrat operative James Carville, when he asked 'The Ragin' Cajun' if he worries about 'vote tampering in the midterms.' 'Do you worry about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and some of these types monkeying around with the midterms and the way we do elections in this country?' The former CNN anchor went on, suggesting they were worried the left would bring about impeachment against Trump again. 'I mean, with what they're trying to pull these days, they don't want accountability. They don't want the Democrats getting the gavels in the House and Senate to be able to hold hearings and start impeachment proceedings.' Carville answered affirmatively. Trump has at very least been clear that he does not plan to govern beyond his second term. Earlier this year, Trump stated emphatically that he will not run for reelection in 2028 after alarming constitutional experts by repeatedly flirting with the idea of a third term. For the first time the president brushed off those within MAGA circles encouraging him to balk the Constitution and remain in office beyond his eight, nonconsecutive years. Instead, he listed some potential political heirs for the 2028 presidential election. Trump directly highlighted rising GOP stars he sees as capable of carrying on the MAGA agenda including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. NBC News anchor Kristen Welker asked the president during the interview that aired on Sunday if he is 'seriously considering' a third term. 'I will say this – so many people want me to do it,' Trump replied. 'I have never had requests so strong as that.' 'But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do,' he conceded. 'I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else. But, there are many people selling the 2028 hat.' Trump then assured the NBC host: 'But this is not something I'm looking to do.' Trump says he wants to turn over the White House to an heir for the Make America Great Again agenda in 2028. Multiple polls show Republicans prefer either Vice President Vance or Trump's eldest son Donald Trump Jr., who has so far expressed little interest in following in his father's footsteps and running for public office. 'I'm looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward,' Trump told Welker in his Meet the Press sit-down interview. 'But I think we're going to have four years, and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.' Welker expressed shock that Trump even cast any doubt over the constitutionality of going for a third term. 'The Constitution does prohibit it,' she said to the president. 'Some of your allies are pretty serious about this, though, Mr. President. And I've spoken to them. They say they are coming up with potential ways, obviously the biggest one would be a constitutional amendment.' 'That's because they like the job I'm doing, and it's a compliment. It's really a great compliment,' Trump said, shrugging of Welker's concerns.
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Trump pledges more weapons for Kyiv while sacked ex-Russian minister found dead
Donald Trump has reversed his decision on military assistance for Ukraine and said the US will have to send more weapons as the besieged nation was getting 'hit very hard now'. "We have to," Mr Trump said, speaking to reporters at the White House. "They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now. We're going to send some more weapons – defensive weapons primarily,' the US president said. This comes as Russian former transport minister Roman Starovoit has been found dead hours after he was fired unexpectedly by Vladimir Putin. "Today, the body of the former Minister of Transport of the Russian Federation, Roman Starovoit, was found with a gunshot wound in his personal car," Russia 's investigative committee said in a statement. The committee implied that Starovoit took his own life, news which comes hours after Putin fired Starovoit in an unexpected move as Russia 's transport sector faces challenges. Putin's decree gave no reason for the dismissal of Starovoit after barely a year in the job. Starovoit was appointed transport minister in May 2024 after spending almost five years as governor of the Kursk region bordering Ukraine. Trump reverses decision and sends more weapons to Ukraine days after ordering pause Donald Trump has said the US will have to send more weapons to Ukraine, just days after ordering a pause in critical weapons deliveries to Kyiv. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr Trump said Ukraine was getting hit very hard by Russia and needed to be able to defend itself. The US would be sending primarily defensive weapons, he said. "We have to," Mr Trump said. "They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now. We're going to send some more weapons — defensive weapons primarily,' the US president said. The latest remarks by Mr Trump appeared to be an abrupt change in posture after the Pentagon announced last week that it would hold back delivering to Ukraine some air defence missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons because of what US officials said were concerns that stockpiles have declined too much. The Pentagon has not issued a comment on whether the paused weapons shipments to Ukraine would resume.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Gunning for economic growth: Is defence spending the answer?
And following a commitment last month by the UK as one of the 32 members of NATO, defence spending is set to reach 5% of GDP by 2035. This target - which falls after the next UK general election - is as much about keeping US president Donald Trump in the European defence fold as it is a response to the menace of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. That's not to dismiss the threats posed by Russia, China and others, which are authentic and should not be ignored. Realpolitik demands mustering the most muscular and united front as possible. Read more: In that vein of practicality, the Prime Minister and Chancellor (for the time being, at least) Rachel Reeves have been championing the benefits set to be unleashed by higher military spending as the latest rescue remedy for the UK economy. "We must now seize a defence dividend for the British people," the Prime Minister declared last month during a visit to the BAE Systems shipyard in Glasgow. "Creating new jobs, skills and community pride across the country." Not all agree that defence spending is a tonic. Writing for The Herald, professor Karen Bell of the University of Glasgow said the assumption that military investment will deliver economic dividends demands "urgent scrutiny". "Analysis for the Scottish Government showed military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of any public investment," she said. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a visit to BAE Systems in June in Glasgow (Image: Andy Buchanan/PA) "For every pound spent, sectors like care, education and renewable energy produce far more and better-quality employment. At the same time, excess government defence spending comes at the cost of these other socially necessary jobs." Khem Rogaly, senior research fellow at the thinktank Common Wealth, is among others who support this view. He points out that London and the south of England accounted 56% of Ministry of Defence spending with UK businesses last year, while nearly 40% of the £37.6 billion military equipment budget went to just 10 multinational companies. BAE is the largest of these suppliers, accounting for roughly 15% of the annual equipment budget. Its main operations in Scotland include the aforementioned site in Govan along with the Scotstoun shipyard in Glasgow. Its next largest site is at Prestwick airport, where 240 employees provide engineering support for the commercial aircraft built by BAE, a further 160 staff at Hillend near Edinburgh specialising in electronics development, and 100 employees working at RAF Lossiemouth. Read more: In a study commissioned by BAE that was published last week, researchers at Oxford Economics determined that the UK Government's aim of delivering a "defence dividend" is already taking effect with BAE spending £550 million with 300 suppliers in Scotland. Throughout the UK, the company was said to have contributed £13.7bn to GDP in 2024, accounting for one in every £200 of economic output. 'With 4,500 employees in Scotland and spending £550m with 300 suppliers, we're proud to support both national security and economic growth," BAE naval ship supply chain director Sean Scott said. 'As one of the UK's largest employers we recognise the impact we have - creating jobs, developing skills and strengthening communities in Scotland and across the country.' Whatever your view on the merits of a higher defence budget versus those of other public services, the reality is that this additional money is going to be spent if the government holds to its commitments. With that in mind, the engineering industry in Scotland needs to secure as much of this as possible. Read more: This point was raised earlier this year by Gerry Hughes, managing director of family-owned KRG Specialist Engineering in Coatbridge. He maintains that more needs to be done to ensure large contractors source locally, ensuring small and medium-sized firms in Scotland benefit from the financial rewards. 'While major defence firms such as BAE Systems, Babcock, and Leonardo have operations in Scotland, much of their supply chain spending still goes elsewhere," Mr Hughes told The Herald. "The UK Government has committed to directing 25% of defence spending to SMEs, but how much of that truly benefits Scottish businesses? Without stronger links between local firms and defence procurement, Scotland risks missing out on a vital economic opportunity." The solution? Better support for advanced manufacturing in Scotland with backing from the Scottish and UK Government in skills, innovation and infrastructure to keep firms competitive in defence supply chains. Mr Hughes also argues that Scottish firms should have greater access to Ministry of Defence contracts, declaring that they must be embedded in procurement to prevent local expertise from being overlooked in favour of larger, more established suppliers. Read more: 'Scotland's engineering excellence is not just history - it is the foundation of a resilient and secure defence industry," he said. "While shipbuilding remains critical, the future of UK defence cannot be confined to the Clyde alone. "A genuine commitment to local procurement will not only bolster national security but also ensure Scotland's world-class precision engineering and manufacturing capabilities are fully utilised." So will defence spending turbocharge economic growth? The verdict from analysts at Capital Economics is a conditional "no". The rise in defence spending that looks likely in many countries across Europe will boost demand and output, but not by as much as some would hope due to several factors such as capacity restraints and the reliance on imports referred to by Mr Hughes. There could be "significant" improvement to productive potential in some economies in the long run, according to Capital Economics, but this will happen over decades and is not guaranteed. The UK is particularly constrained by a lack of spare capacity, which is all the more reason to ensure no viable firm is overlooked in the distribution of any "defence dividends".
