Trump’s Energy Policies Raise Prices, Burden Low-Income Households

Amid promises of drastically reducing energy costs, recent statistics paint a different picture of the energy market under Donald Trump’s administration. Despite assertions to cut energy prices by 50%, electricity and natural gas prices have instead risen by 6.7% and 10.8%, respectively, over the past year. Factors such as market dynamics, weather patterns, and infrastructure issues heavily influence these price changes, often beyond presidential control. Nonetheless, the administration’s energy policies have undeniably played a significant role in shaping these outcomes.

From the onset of his presidency, Trump’s energy policy has shown a clear inclination towards supporting fossil fuel producers. This approach included expanding US liquefied natural gas exports, thus increasing the nation’s exposure to volatile global fuel markets. Additionally, the administration stalled wind power projects, which are among the most affordable new electricity sources, supported costly coal plants, and backed the removal of energy-efficiency tax credits that could have helped in reducing energy bills.

Efforts to trim down federal initiatives like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program further exemplify the administration’s priorities. These programs are vital for shielding low-income families from the brunt of rising energy costs. Although Congress managed to block these cuts, preventing immediate harm to millions of families, the policy direction underscores a focus on fossil fuels over consumer protection.

Proponents of these policies argue they foster “energy independence.” However, relying more on global fuel markets while dismantling domestic, cost-effective energy sources and efficiency measures seems counterproductive. The predictable consequence is escalating prices, increased market volatility, and secured profits for fossil fuel producers, with the financial burden falling heavily on low-to-moderate-income households.

The affordability of energy is increasingly strained. Home heating costs are projected to rise by 9.2% this winter, significantly outpacing the rate of inflation. While higher-income households might manage these increases, they can prove devastating for less affluent families, pushing them into energy debt or risking utility shutoffs. Recent polls suggest that nearly one in four households now find their energy bills unaffordable.

Energy expenditure does not scale with income, meaning lower-income households spend a higher percentage of their income on energy costs compared to wealthier ones. Between 2024 and 2025, this disparity widened: those earning less than $30,000 saw their energy budget share rise from 9.4% to 9.9%, whereas the share for households earning between $30,000 and $58,000 grew from 4.9% to 5.1%. For the highest earners, the increase was marginal, from 1.2% to 1.3%.

These outcomes are not an inherent feature of the energy markets but rather a reflection of policy choices that inflate system costs and weaken efficiency and affordability protections. As a result, utility arrears have spiked alongside rising energy prices, increasing from $15.4 billion at the end of 2021 to an estimated $23 billion in 2025. Projections suggest arrears could hit $28 billion in 2026, exacerbated by broader inflationary pressures on essentials like rent, food, and medical care.

Resolving the issue of high energy costs is neither complex nor ideological. Effective policy should aim at reducing system costs and minimizing household vulnerability to price fluctuations. This involves prioritizing energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy sources that lower demand and stabilize prices. Expanding tax incentives for home efficiency improvements and solar installations can permanently decrease electricity and natural gas consumption. Additionally, targeted bill assistance can shield families from sudden price surges, avoiding the need for them to absorb financial shocks.

These strategies are proven, with numerous states and countries achieving lower long-term costs and greater price stability by focusing on efficiency, renewables, and consumer protections. The necessary tools and economic understanding are available; what remains crucial is the political resolve to implement such policies. An administration with consumer interests at heart cannot continue to prioritize fossil fuel producers without expecting adverse outcomes. Lower energy prices will result from policies that reduce demand, enhance competition, and prioritize consumer needs.

• Mark Wolfe is executive director of National Energy Assistance Directors Association, co-director of the Center on Energy Poverty and Climate, and adjunct faculty at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy at George Washington University.