Introduction: A High-Stakes Election for Energy Policy
The report opens by arguing that the 2020 US presidential election carries major implications not only for domestic energy policy but also for global energy markets and international climate diplomacy. It frames the election as a contest between two sharply different policy visions at a moment when the two major US political parties are more divided on energy and climate than at any recent point.
Under President Donald Trump, the Republican approach is described as centered on “energy dominance,” with strong support for expanded fossil fuel production, infrastructure buildout, and exports, and a limited role for climate policy. Under a Democratic administration, the report expects a different trajectory built around large-scale emissions reductions, clean energy investment, and a much stronger federal climate agenda.
The report also makes clear that the election’s consequences extend beyond energy markets. Trade policy, foreign relations, alliance management, and global climate engagement are all tied to the result. Even so, it cautions that whichever administration takes power, uncertainty and volatility are likely to remain major features of the policy environment.
Scenario One: Donald Trump Is Reelected
The first scenario assumes a second Trump term and uses the administration’s first-term record as a guide to future action. The report argues that a reelected Trump administration would continue and try to entrench its deregulatory energy agenda, further promote domestic fossil fuel production and exports, reduce the consideration of climate concerns in permitting and rulemaking, and seek to constrain the ability of states to exceed federal environmental minimums.
Internationally, this scenario is expected to maintain a more nationalistic and transactional approach to foreign and trade policy, with less emphasis on traditional alliances and multilateral frameworks.
Completing the Deregulatory Agenda
The report describes the first Trump term as one marked by extensive efforts to roll back environmental and land-use policies across the energy sector. These include actions by the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency to ease or rewrite rules affecting methane emissions, power plant regulation, protected species, land access, water permitting, and infrastructure development.
A second Trump term is presented as an opportunity to finish and defend these efforts. Because many of the administration’s key rules were still recent or unfinished at the time of writing, the report notes that reelection would give the administration more time to finalize rulemakings, prevail in litigation, and reshape agencies through appointments. If successful, this would make it easier for producers and infrastructure developers to expand activity and harder for future administrations to reverse course quickly.
The report places special attention on the use of executive authority to assert federal supremacy over permitting. This includes attempts to limit how states use environmental law, particularly the Clean Water Act, to block or delay energy infrastructure. For fossil fuel operators, successful federal control over permitting would improve the outlook for pipelines, export terminals, and other major projects.
Energy Dominance and Expanded Fossil Fuel Development
The report shows that a Trump reelection would likely mean continued prioritization of upstream production, midstream infrastructure, and export capacity. It expects support for more oil and gas leasing on public lands and potentially offshore acreage, continued backing for liquefied natural gas export terminals, and a regulatory environment designed to reduce costs and barriers for conventional energy producers.
At the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a second Trump term is expected to preserve or restore a Republican majority more favorable to major interstate energy infrastructure. That would likely support faster approvals and a generally accommodating posture toward oil, gas, and export-related projects.
However, the report also notes that this path would not eliminate conflict. State governments, local authorities, courts, and grassroots activists are expected to continue fighting projects and regulations, especially in progressive jurisdictions. As a result, even a second Trump term would not create a frictionless environment for developers. Instead, it would intensify the struggle between federal power and state or local opposition.
Climate Policy Under a Second Trump Term
On climate policy, the report expects a second Trump administration to continue minimizing federal engagement. It notes that the United States was due to withdraw formally from the Paris Agreement just after the 2020 election date, and a reelected Trump administration is expected to carry through with that withdrawal and maintain a skeptical position toward international climate diplomacy.
Domestically, the report expects little interest in stronger regulation of carbon dioxide or methane emissions. It points to the Affordable Clean Energy rule as an example of the administration’s preferred approach, which emphasizes limited efficiency improvements at existing power plants rather than broader sector-wide decarbonization. Methane regulation is also expected to remain weak, particularly as the administration seeks to reduce technical and reporting obligations on oil and gas operators.
Even so, the report warns that industry should not assume an entirely favorable long-term environment. Progressive states, young consumers, institutional investors, and international buyers may all increase pressure on companies over climate issues, methane intensity, and disclosure. In this sense, the report suggests that even absent strong federal climate leadership, market and political pressure could continue to mount.
Foreign Policy Under Trump: Retrenchment and Sanctions Risk
The foreign policy outlook in the Trump reelection scenario is described as one of continued restraint, bilateralism, and selective alignment rather than broad alliance-based leadership. The report expects the administration to maintain a strong relationship with governments such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, a hard line toward Iran, and a generally constrained role for the United States in international institutions.
However, it also notes that this retrenchment could create instability and unpredictability. A more aggressive Russia, an emboldened China, and continued tension in the Middle East could raise risks for global energy markets. The report further suggests that Congress might respond independently, especially through sanctions legislation targeting countries such as Russia or Iran. For energy companies, this means that even if the executive branch prefers restraint, legislative action could still create significant commercial risk.
Trade Policy Under Trump: Protectionism and Friction
The report presents Trump’s trade policy as one of the most consequential aspects of his first term and one likely to continue in a second. Tariffs, economic nationalism, and skepticism toward multilateral trade arrangements are expected to remain central themes.
For the energy sector, this creates both direct and indirect effects. Tariffs on steel raise infrastructure costs. Chinese retaliatory tariffs on US energy exports, especially liquefied natural gas, reduce access to one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets. Tensions with Mexico also matter, given the importance of cross-border energy trade.
The report concludes that under a second Trump term, progress on bilateral trade agreements might continue, but industry should not expect quick or stable outcomes. Overall, the trade agenda is expected to remain nationalistic and disruptive, with implications for investment, exports, and long-term market access.
Scenario Two: A Democratic Administration
The second scenario assumes the election of a Democratic president. The report acknowledges uncertainty about the exact ticket and final platform, but argues that the broad direction is already clear. A Democratic administration would seek to restore and strengthen federal climate policy, re-engage internationally on climate diplomacy, slow or limit fossil fuel expansion, and support large-scale investment in clean energy and efficiency.
The report also emphasizes that a Democratic administration would face constraints, especially if Congress remained divided or only narrowly controlled. While executive authority provides significant tools, major spending and statutory reforms would still depend on Congress, and courts could slow or constrain ambitious policy changes.
A Climate-Focused Energy Policy
The report expects a Democratic administration to treat climate change as a central organizing principle for energy policy. At minimum, this would mean reversing many Trump-era changes and returning to a regulatory baseline more similar to that of the Obama years. But the report suggests many Democratic candidates had ambitions that went beyond restoration and toward deeper structural change.
This would likely include stronger scrutiny of new fossil fuel infrastructure, more expansive use of federal environmental law, tighter methane regulation, more ambitious emissions standards for vehicles and power generation, and a broader push toward renewable electricity and electrification of transport and buildings.
The report notes that some Democratic proposals were highly ambitious, including fast timelines for zero-emission electricity and transport. At the same time, it emphasizes that practical governance, political realities, and the importance of fossil fuel employment in key states would likely moderate or complicate implementation.
Rejoining Paris and Expanding Climate Commitments
The report expects that any Democratic president would move quickly to rejoin the Paris Agreement, likely as an immediate priority. This would restore US participation in international climate diplomacy and likely lead to a new national emissions pledge stronger than the Obama-era commitment.
Domestically, a Democratic administration is expected to pursue a new regulatory strategy for the power sector, transportation, and methane emissions. Unlike the Trump approach, this strategy would aim for much deeper emissions cuts and would likely support more aggressive federal standards and greater alignment with states such as California on vehicle emissions and fuel economy.
The report presents methane as a particularly important area of likely action. It notes that Democratic candidates broadly viewed methane reductions as critical and expected that a new administration would reinstate or strengthen requirements for leak detection, repair, measurement, and reporting.
Fossil Fuel Constraints and Clean Energy Expansion
One of the clearest distinctions in the Democratic scenario is the likely skepticism toward new fossil fuel development, especially on public lands. The report notes that bans on new leasing for federal lands and offshore areas were prominent in Democratic proposals. A Democratic administration is also expected to favor quicker growth in renewables, energy efficiency, and low-carbon infrastructure.
At the same time, the report does not present this transition as simple. It underscores the economic and political importance of the fossil fuel sector in several states and points out that rapid transitions create risks for jobs, local economies, and energy security if lower-carbon alternatives are not yet sufficiently scaled.
It also notes that not all low-carbon technologies are politically settled. Carbon capture, hydrogen, energy storage, and efficiency measures are identified as areas where bipartisan or cross-sector support may exist, while nuclear energy appears more internally contested within Democratic politics.
Foreign Policy Under Democrats: Alliances, Climate, and Rebalancing
The report expects a Democratic administration to rebuild alliances and restore a more conventional role for the State Department and multilateral diplomacy. Strategic reassurance to partners in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere is described as an early priority, especially after the uncertainty associated with Trump’s foreign policy style.
At the same time, the report suggests that tensions with China would remain substantial. A Democratic administration would still be critical of Chinese trade practices, human rights issues, and strategic behavior, even if it pursued a more orderly or coalition-based approach than Trump. Climate policy could become one area of leverage or engagement, but the broader relationship is expected to remain difficult.
In the Middle East, a Democratic administration is likely to take a more critical view of Saudi Arabia and may seek to revive diplomacy with Iran through a revised nuclear agreement. If successful, that could restore some Iranian oil exports to global markets and place further downward pressure on oil prices.
Trade Policy Under Democrats: Fairer Trade with Climate Conditions
The report describes Democratic trade policy as different from Trump’s but not necessarily a return to old-style free trade. Many Democrats remain skeptical of traditional multilateral agreements, especially if they are seen as undermining labor, environmental standards, or domestic industry.
Instead, the report expects Democrats to pursue what they would frame as fairer trade, with stronger labor and environmental requirements. Climate policy in particular is likely to become part of future trade design. Some Democratic proposals included carbon border measures, climate-related trade conditions, or requirements linked to Paris Agreement commitments.
For industry, the report suggests this could create a more stable and alliance-friendly trade framework than under Trump, but also one in which climate performance and emissions intensity play a greater role in market access. That would create new obligations and strategic pressures, especially for carbon-intensive sectors.
Areas of Continuity and Ongoing Volatility
Although the two election scenarios differ sharply, the report argues that some deeper realities would remain the same. Climate change, infrastructure needs, geopolitical competition, technological disruption, and the complexity of energy transition all extend beyond a single election or administration.
Whichever party wins, the United States will still face unresolved questions about how to balance production, security, affordability, competitiveness, and decarbonization. The report suggests that no single administration can fully solve these issues, and that conflict over permitting, regulation, trade, and emissions is likely to continue.
That means industry should prepare not just for one policy shift, but for sustained volatility. In one scenario, that volatility comes from federal deregulation colliding with state, market, and international climate pressures. In the other, it comes from ambitious federal decarbonization goals colliding with institutional constraints, economic interests, and political resistance.
Conclusion
The report concludes that the 2020 election represents a major turning point for US energy policy, but not a final resolution of the country’s core energy and climate dilemmas. A second Trump administration would push further toward fossil fuel expansion, deregulation, weaker climate policy, and economic nationalism. A Democratic administration would move toward stronger climate action, more support for clean energy, tighter emissions regulation, and a more alliance-based foreign policy.
Yet in both cases, the long-term structural pressures remain. Climate change is intensifying. Energy transition is accelerating globally. Political divisions in the United States are deep. Markets, courts, states, and international actors all continue to shape outcomes alongside federal policy.
The overall message is that the election matters enormously, but it does not eliminate uncertainty. For energy companies, investors, and external stakeholders, preparation for continued instability, policy divergence, and strategic adaptation is essential regardless of who wins.
