The second Trump Administration’s first 100 days dealing with carbon management and negative emissions can be summed up in one word – incoherence. The administration has shown some signs of support for efforts to capture carbon dioxide at power plants and other industrial facilities and remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, including in official statements and funding decisions. However, other steps taken have meaningfully undermined federal government policy and expertise on carbon removal. Notably, the administration has fired key staff members and has paused or otherwise undermined carbon removal funding programs. Given this incoherence, those interested in facilitative carbon management policy are likely to look to state governments.
Small Signals of Support
The White House has signaled, at least at a surface level, support for carbon management technologies. For example, the White House released a statement on Earth Day that the administration is “supporting cutting-edge technologies like carbon capture and storage.” So far, however, the administration is yet to back this up with any concrete actions. And, as discussed further below, many of the actions it has taken are more likely to harm carbon capture and storage projects than help them.
The administration has also shown a willingness to consider continued funding for carbon dioxide removal projects. For example, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided for $3.5 billion in funding for Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs, which aim to accelerate the deployment of the technology in a select few demonstration projects. After reports indicated the Department of Energy (DOE) was making plans to cancel the DAC Hubs funding, follow up reports indicated the agency was reevaluating that position. The reversal followed a concerted effort by industry groups and elected officials in Louisiana to convince administration officials of the economic benefits of the project. At the time of writing, the funding decisions were still under review.
DOE has also advanced other programs supporting carbon dioxide removal but, again, their long-term fate remains somewhat uncertain. For instance, in March, the agency released a notice of intent for an initiative designed to support voluntary purchases of carbon dioxide removal credits. The initiative aims to remove “non-financial barriers” to carbon dioxide removal credit purchases by, among other things, creating a leaderboard to track purchases and providing supportive materials to help buyers make purchases. However, this initiative was created before layoffs hit DOE’s carbon management staff, as explained below. Given that this staff was likely to administer the program, its status is unclear.
In the marine carbon dioxide removal space, in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a permit for an ocean alkalinity enhancement research project in federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts. While the permit application and initial agency considerations occurred during the Biden Administration, Trump Administration officials did not intervene to overturn the approval.
Actions Undermining Carbon Management
Despite the above signals, the administration has taken meaningful action to undermine federal leadership on carbon management.
Firings across federal agencies have impacted carbon management experts at DOE. In February, the administration laid off four out of five employees in the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management’s Carbon Dioxide Removal Program. Although the layoffs coincided with layoffs of thousands of probationary employees, and may not have been targeted at the substance of their work, their loss will have an impact. The employees were responsible for administering both the DAC hubs program and the voluntary carbon credit initiative described above.
Firings also impacted marine carbon dioxide removal experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under the Biden Administration, NOAA had played a critical role in advancing marine carbon dioxide removal discussions and issued an agency strategy for research. The loss of NOAA experts is likely to undermine the agency’s role in advancing sound science on marine carbon dioxide removal.
The Trump Administration has also failed to continue Biden-era efforts to develop coherent carbon removal strategies across federal agencies. For example, the Biden Administration created an Interagency Working Group on marine carbon dioxide removal, which in turn developed a National Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Research Strategy. The Trump Administration has declined to reconstitute the group or otherwise signal an intent to continue to advance marine carbon dioxide removal policy.
The Trump Administration has also indirectly undermined carbon capture and storage through its attempts to roll back Biden-era climate policies. In March, the EPA announced, among a slew of climate deregulatory actions, that it was reconsidering regulations on power plants. Those regulations, issued in 2024, proscribed emissions reduction standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. The emissions standards relied on carbon capture and storage as the “best system of emission reduction.” For more on the regulations, and their connection to carbon capture, see the blog post here. If the EPA goes through with the likely action of withdrawing those regulations, it would undercut significant regulatory support for carbon capture.
Growing Interest in State-Level Policy
Given the changing federal landscape, states will likely need to play an increasing role in supporting carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies. Several are well positioned to do so.
Several states have recently proposed legislation aimed at supporting carbon dioxide removal, in particular. For example, earlier this year, a new bill (AB 1086) was introduced in California, which would require the State Air Resources Board to establish a Marine Carbon Initiative to advance scientific understanding of marine carbon removal. This continues its growing legislation on carbon management and commitment to net zero, evidenced by legislation on public disclosure (SB 253 and SB 261), carbon sequestration (SB 905) and emissions goals (SB 308). New York has proposed purchasing significant amounts of carbon removal as part of a cap-and-invest program. In Massachusetts, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act (S.2096) seeks to establish a competitive program for CDR measures, while ensuring that the benefits are distributed to the community and society. And in Washington, the Climate Commitment Act directs funds generated from emissions allowances, which can come from negative emissions projects, towards communities that bear the greatest burdens from air pollution.
Several states are also in a position to advance geological carbon sequestration (which we have previously written on here). For example, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Louisiana have each been granted regulatory authority over geologic CO2 sequestration wells by the EPA. The increased legislative efforts have coincided with DAC projects in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas. Alaska has enacted its own Carbon Offset Program, allowing Alaska to use its lands and natural resources for carbon management projects.
The federal government’s incoherent policy on carbon management and negative emissions hinders safe and responsible governance of the field. But, as outlined above, states have already begun and will likely continue to advance carbon management policy in the absence of federal leadership.
Korey is the senior fellow in carbon management and negative emissions at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
Ashwin Murthy
Ashwin Murthy is the Negative Emissions Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
