Trump’s Energy Innovation Retreat Is a Win for China, Loss for Climate
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program

Trump’s Energy Innovation Retreat Is a Win for China, Loss for Climate

A person looks at stacks of trays holding treated limestone, used to absorb CO2 form the air, at a plant in Tracy, California,.
A person looks at stacks of trays holding treated limestone, used to absorb CO2 form the air, at a plant in Tracy, California,. Heirloom Carbon/Handout via Reuters

The United States is pulling back from large-scale demonstration projects for emerging energy technologies, even as China steps up.

September 8, 2025 3:00 pm (EST)

A person looks at stacks of trays holding treated limestone, used to absorb CO2 form the air, at a plant in Tracy, California,.
A person looks at stacks of trays holding treated limestone, used to absorb CO2 form the air, at a plant in Tracy, California,. Heirloom Carbon/Handout via Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

David M. Hart is a senior fellow for climate and energy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Maximilian Hippold is a research associate for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

More From Our Experts

The Trump administration is pulling back sharply on large-scale projects that demonstrate cutting-edge energy technologies. Unless Congress steps in forcefully to preserve the program which a bipartisan majority funded just four years ago, the cuts will slow the global response to climate change and hurt U.S. competitiveness in emerging energy technologies. China, meanwhile, is stepping up its investments and seeking to extend its technological lead.

Why governments should invest in demonstration projects

More on:

Climate Realism

Renewable Energy

United States

Climate Change

Many of the technologies that large-scale demonstration projects would advance, such as new kinds of nuclear reactors or steel mills, could ultimately pay off for society, but the risks and costs of their first iterations are usually too steep even for very risk-tolerant capitalists to take on. Government investment in demonstration projects plugs the gap left by private investors.  

Scale and complexity are the roots of this problem. Large scale makes power plants and industrial facilities economical, enabling them to supply electricity and goods that are vital to society at low costs. The same features create barriers to innovation. The first full-scale nuclear reactor or steel plant of its type probably won’t run as smoothly or affordably as the older ones their builders hope to replace, even if the new ones have passed smaller-scale tests with flying colors. Moreover, potential competitors can sit back and learn from the first movers without risking a penny. 

As a result, private investors frequently take a pass on staking hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on demonstration projects. Yet the societal benefits of advancing these technologies can be large. A hefty fraction of the emissions that drive global climate change come from large-scale facilities. The innovations that could drastically reduce their emissions may have additional benefits, such as greater affordability or security. Government funding that bridges the so-called “demonstration valley of death” [PDF] can give domestic pioneers in these emerging sectors a leg up on their competitors abroad.  

More From Our Experts

Gaps in the global portfolio 

The United States, the European Union, and fifteen other nations responded to this challenge in September 2022 by pledging $94 billion in public funding to support large-scale demonstration projects during the current decade. This amount exceeded the $90 billion that the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated [PDF] would be needed to stay on its roadmap to net-zero emissions. However, as we show in a recent analysis, “the combined effort of pledged countries is falling far short of the pledge’s goal.”  

Technological progress in the global demonstration project portfolio has been uneven as well. The IEA’s net-zero scenario highlighted eleven technology areas, ranging from synthetic fuels to small modular nuclear reactors. More than 80 percent of projects and funding tracked by the IEA have flowed to only four of these eleven: biofuels; carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS); offshore wind; and hydrogen production, storage, and transportation.  

More on:

Climate Realism

Renewable Energy

United States

Climate Change

Some of the neglected areas are big contributors to climate change. For example, the steel industry, which causes 7 percent of global emissions, is the focus of only two projects. Similarly, international shipping, which causes another 3 percent, accounts for just two as well. Emissions from such sectors are not going to decline unless demonstration projects show that innovative clean technologies are technically viable and have a plausible pathway to affordability. 

The United States’ Pullback

The United States committed $21.9 billion to the September 2022 pledge, comprising the entire budget of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) in the Department of Energy (DOE), which Congress had set up the year before. By the end of the Biden administration, Congress had given OCED more than $26.7 billion for large-scale projects. While some of these projects supported work in areas well-represented in the global portfolio, such as CCUS and hydrogen, others promised to fill gaps in areas like industrial decarbonization and long-duration energy storage.  

The Trump administration is pulling back hard on these planned investments. In May 2025, DOE announced the cancellation of $3.7 billion awarded by OCED for industrial demonstration projects. The industries impacted included cement, fuels, chemicals, glass, and steel. The administration’s request for DOE’s fiscal year 2026 budget states that it would cancel an additional $15 billion [PDF], although the specific projects included in this proposal have not yet been identified. 

The administration has also crippled DOE’s newly created capacity to manage large-scale projects. A reported 77 percent of OCED’s staff opted to leave the department voluntarily in the first few months of Trump’s term, and the office has essentially been dismantled.  

OCED’s administrative record has been criticized in recent reports by DOE’s Inspector General as well as external observers. The task of overseeing billions of dollars for cutting-edge fields with very limited administrative funding, while developing project management capabilities that DOE had not previously possessed, was daunting. Some poorly designed projects were approved, and some decisions  might have been rushed. 

The critics have not shown that OCED made significant technical misjudgments, much less acted corruptly. Because the awards were phased, only about 3 percent of OCED’s budget has actually gone to developers, limiting the financial risk and allowing time to strengthen or drop weak projects. DOE did not provide substantial evidence, much less rigorous analysis, to back its cancellations. A review by Resources for the Future concluded that “that many of the projects that DOE canceled could have generated long-run public returns—and potential short-run financial returns...” The Energy Futures Initiative added that “canceling these awards has ripple effects. ...investors will lose faith in DOE-supported projects.”

China steps up 

As the United States pulls back, China is stepping up. China already dominates key growth sectors, such as solar panels and battery manufacturing, and it is aggressively investing in emerging energy technologies. In March 2025, the central government announced 101 new demonstration projects, adding to the 47 funded last year. Iron and steel, long-duration energy storage, and the production of polysilicon (the primary material used in solar panels and semiconductors) are among the many technology areas targeted. 

The United States remains engaged in some vital areas of emerging energy technologies, such as nuclear and geothermal power. The Trump administration has maintained the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, announced new initiatives to build plants at government sites, and eased licensing and permitting. China continues to invest in these areas as well. Competition between the two nations to refine and scale these technologies should accelerate innovation (although stronger international cooperation in precompetitive and non-proprietary R&D would also help).  

U.S. relinquishes leadership as global gaps remain 

But gaps in the global portfolio remain. Chemicals, fuels, shipping, and carbon dioxide removal are among the areas where American investment will be particularly missed. Even more important, the demise of OCED dramatically weakens the world’s capacity to identify and fill new gaps that will emerge as the economy and technology evolve in the coming decades. One of OCED’s final reports identified two dozen opportunities [PDF] that are promising now or likely to become so during this decade alone.  

Over the past eighty years, federal innovation investment sparked the growth of major industries, including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, the internet, and AI, to name a few. During the same time span, the United States frequently sought to mobilize international action to address collective problems. Congress carried forward these traditions when it created and funded OCED. Unless the administration can be persuaded to reverse course, the nation will relinquish both strands of global leadership this year. 

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the authors. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Will Merrow created the graphic for this article.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

United States

CFR President Michael Froman analyzes the Trump administrations new National Security Strategy.

Venezuela

The opposition and the Maduro regime will face a new variable at the negotiating table: the United States and its heavy military presence off Venezuela’s coast. As a direct party, the Trump administration now has an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past to bring a potential conflict to a close. 

Taiwan

Assumptions about how a potential conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan would unfold should urgently be revisited. Such a war, far from being insulated, would likely draw in additional powers, expand geographically, and escalate vertically.