Trump loves fossil fuels. That much is obvious from his policy record. But the numbers behind that love tell a different story about who actually benefits from it.
The fossil fuel industry has poured millions into Trump’s campaigns and inauguration funds. Energy companies have donated at least $75 million to Trump’s campaign, with oil and gas firms contributing nearly $12 million to his 2025 inauguration fund. At least $25 million has come from one oil firm, Energy Transfer Partners, and its CEO.
That money buys access. It buys policy. And it buys a president who keeps rolling back environmental protections while the world burns.
Numbers Behind the Love
About 38,000 people in the US work in coal, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. About 100,000 yoga instructors are registered with the Yoga Alliance, an industry group.
Those two numbers sit side by side for a reason. Trump’s climate policies benefit a tiny slice of the economy — the fossil fuel workers — while ignoring everyone else. The Yoga Alliance figure is not a joke. It is a measure of how concentrated the economic interest in Trump’s energy policy really is.
The EPA has announced it will lift limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-burning power plants, reversing Biden and Obama-era climate policies. The Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled, in a six-to-three decision along party lines, that the EPA lacks independent authority to regulate carbon.
Together, those moves strip federal oversight from the dirtiest sources of electricity. The result is more pollution, more climate risk, and more money for the companies that produce it.
Money Behind the Policy
The donations are not hidden. They are reported and public. Trump described energy industry donations as part of a “deal” when soliciting contributions during his 2024 campaign.
A deal means something specific. It means the donor gets something in return. In this case, the return is regulatory relief — the ability to pollute without fear of federal limits.
At least $25 million has come from one oil firm, Energy Transfer Partners, and its CEO. That is a significant share of the total campaign haul.
The pattern holds across the data. The money comes from a narrow set of interests. The policy benefits that narrow set of interests. The companies that fund Trump’s campaigns receive the regulatory relief they want, while the rest of the economy bears the costs of more pollution and climate risk.
Why the Industry Gives
Cara Daggett, a Virginia Tech professor, wrote the 2018 paper “Petro-Masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire.” Daggett argues the American right’s energy policy posture requires a psychological explanation, not just material measures.
Her argument is that the love of fossil fuels is not just about money. It is about identity, about power, and about a vision of manhood tied to extraction and control. The industry’s political influence is not just financial. It is cultural, emotional, and deeply rooted in how people see themselves and their country.
That is a useful corrective to the idea that policy is purely rational. But it does not change the math. The people who stand to lose from climate action are few in number, and the people who stand to gain from it are many.
Global Context
China has surpassed the US in solar panel production at an alarming rate. That is a signal of what is possible when a government directs resources toward clean energy.
Trump’s response has been to double down on fossil fuels. He has simply removed the barriers that stood in the way of the industry he already represents.
That is a choice. It is a choice made by a president who has spent years courting the same donors who fund his campaigns.
The Deal in Practice
When Trump solicits donations and calls them a “deal,” he is describing a transaction. The donor gives money, the candidate wins, and the policy follows. That is how the system works.
The EPA’s announcement to lift emission limits follows the same logic. The agency is removing constraints on an industry that has funded Trump’s campaigns. The beneficiaries are clear.
Who Pays the Price
The people who work in coal are a small fraction of the US workforce. The people who breathe polluted air are a much larger group. Climate risk affects many more people than the jobs that create it.
The Yoga Alliance figure matters here. It shows how narrow the economic interest is. There are far more yoga instructors than coal workers, and yet the policy debate treats coal as the heart of the economy.
That is not accurate. It is not even close. It is a rhetorical move, one that has been used for decades to defend industries that have lost their social value.
The Arithmetic of the Deal
The pattern is consistent. The money comes from a few companies. The policy benefits those companies. The president describes the relationship as a deal.
That is the full picture. It is not pretty, but it is not complicated either. The fossil fuel industry supports Trump, and Trump supports the fossil fuel industry.
The irony is that the industry is not even winning on the global stage. China is ahead on solar. The future is not coal. The future is not gas. The future is clean energy, and the countries that prepare for it will outcompete the ones that do not.
Trump’s policy is a choice to protect a shrinking market. It is a choice to ignore the science. It is a choice to treat the planet as a loss leader for a few donors.
The numbers tell that story. The deal is visible in every donation figure. The policy is visible in every announcement. The outcome is visible in the air, the water, and the climate data.
The people who benefit are few. The people who pay are many. That is the arithmetic of Trump’s love of fossil fuels.
| Donation Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Energy companies (total) | At least $75 million |
| Oil and gas companies | Nearly $12 million |
| Energy Transfer Partners & CEO | At least $25 million |
The deal is simple. The donor gives. The candidate wins. The policy follows.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs small business and the individual against both the agency and the giant, and so opposes the concentration of power that lets one oil firm and its CEO direct policy through repeated donations to a presidential campaign and inauguration fund. When a single company can fund a presidential race and shape national climate policy, the playing field is no longer level.
The story shows the math clearly: a few companies give $75 million, and in return get regulatory relief that lifts limits on coal and gas plant emissions. The EPA announcement to lift those limits follows the same logic. The beneficiaries are clear: a handful of fossil fuel firms. The people who pay are many: everyone who breathes polluted air, everyone affected by climate risk.
The paper accepts oversight where a business directly harms people or the environment, but wants that oversight narrow and aimed at the harm, not a broad new rulebook written by the biggest players. Here the agency itself is acting on behalf of the very firms that funded the campaign, and the result is less federal oversight of the dirtiest sources of electricity.
Source material: “Trump’s love of fossil fuels is about more than money | Moira Donegan,” The Guardian.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.