President Trump may yet make at least two countries great — but neither will be the United States.
After the performances in Davos, Switzerland that left America diminished on the world stage, the administration doubled down. Through EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the broader energy posture of this White House, we are witnessing a strategic retreat from the very industries that will define the 21st century. I will address the legal and regulatory implications of that EPA action in a future column. Today, let’s focus on global energy power.
Couple federal retrenchment with executive orders that destabilize trade relationships, and the result is predictable: Competitors advance while America stalls.
Let’s make China great again
China has historically led in transformative technologies — from gunpowder to printing — and today it is aggressively positioning itself as the dominant global energy power. U.S. tariffs and trade disruptions have pushed China to diversify food and commodity supply chains. Brazil and Argentina are now increasingly central to China’s agricultural imports. America’s once-stable export dominance is no longer guaranteed.
But the real story is energy infrastructure.
China now operates the largest wind and solar projects on Earth. (Trump and Trump-type networks have all downplayed China’s use of alternate energy, 41% according to the Energy Information Administration vs. the components they sell).
Wind power
Gansu Wind Farm (Jiuquan Wind Power Base)
Location: Gansu Province
Capacity: ~10.45 GW operational (planned expansion to ~20 GW)
Area: ~1,600 square miles of desert corridor
This is the largest wind power complex in the world.
China also has massive offshore wind developments underway:
• Taiwan Strait Offshore Wind (Planned): ~43.3 GW
• Yangjiang Shaba III (Guangdong): ~1.7 GW
• Jiangsu Offshore Complex: ~1.6 GW
• Guangdong Pearl River Delta Phase IV: ~1.2 GW
These projects span vast marine areas and represent scale unmatched globally.
Solar power
Talatan Solar Park – Qinghai Province
Capacity: ~16 GW
Area: ~235 square miles
Xinjiang / Ürümqi Solar Farm
Capacity: ~3.5 GW
Area: ~51.5 square miles
Tengger Desert Solar Park – Ningxia
Capacity: ~1.5 GW
Area: ~16.6 square miles
China’s desert solar clusters across Inner Mongolia and Ningxia stretch across hundreds of square miles in aggregate.
This is not symbolic development. This is industrial-scale dominance.
What changed in the United States?
Federal policy.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” ended the 30% federal residential solar tax credit early, removing a cornerstone incentive that made solar financially viable for many Americans. While New York’s NY-Sun program remains, federal rollback weakens the total incentive stack.
Without strong federal participation, states must carry the burden alone. Wait until you see your next year’s school tax with the DOE defunded (Thanks Claudia Tenney!)
The January edition of the IBEW journal reported that New York State lost approximately $30 million in energy contracts plus at least 6,700 [E-E News by Politico] good-paying jobs tied to energy sector slowdowns following the BBB. (Thank you Claudia!)
Whether one supports or opposes the policy, the economic shift is measurable: reduced incentives create project uncertainty. Project uncertainty cancels construction. Canceled construction eliminates skilled labor jobs.
Meanwhile, global competitors accelerate.
The battery race
Solar and wind are only part of the story. The real prize is storage.
Battery research was accelerating prior to this administration. Energy storage is the bridge that solves intermittency. Once solved at scale and affordability, fossil fuels lose structural advantage.
The global battery market is projected to reach trillions in cumulative value over the coming decades. If the United States retreats from support of emerging storage technologies while China continues aggressive industrial policy, market leadership will follow capital.
Russia lags. The U.S. is now slowing. China surges.
This is not ideology. It is industrial mathematics.
Why this matters
For 150 years, America led the world in innovation:
• Telegraph
• Assembly-line automobile production
• Aviation
• Semiconductor revolution
• Internet
• Space Exploration Satellite Communications
We led not just because of resources, but because of long-term industrial vision.
Energy is not just electricity. It is national leverage.
If China dominates solar panel manufacturing, wind turbine production, inverter and controller systems and grid-scale battery technology, then it controls supply chains critical to global energy transition.
Tariffs do not substitute for production leadership.
If American companies cannot compete on cost or scale because incentives disappear while competitors receive state-backed industrial support, market share migrates abroad.
The global market implications
If the U.S. reduces participation in renewables and storage, global capital does not disappear — it relocates.
China gains pricing power, export leverage and manufacturing dominance.
Small American businesses that relied on affordable components face rising costs. Installers lose demand. Supply chains shift permanently.
Energy independence in the modern era is not about drilling alone. It is about technological sovereignty.
The strategic error
The assumption behind current federal retrenchment appears to be that traditional fossil fuels alone can secure economic leadership. But global markets are already transitioning.
Coal use is declining across much of the developed world. Electrification is expanding. Transportation is shifting. Grid modernization is underway internationally.
If the United States slows while competitors scale, the long-term cost is not political — it is structural.
We risk surrendering the next century’s dominant energy technologies.
Conclusion
Policy choices have consequences.
If federal incentives vanish while global competitors expand, investment follows certainty. Jobs follow investment. Manufacturing follows demand.
China will benefit immeasurably from reduced American competition in renewables, storage, and advanced energy systems.
Energy leadership determines economic leadership.
The question is not whether solar and batteries will expand globally — they will. The question is whether the United States will lead that expansion or import it.
At present, the trajectory suggests we are choosing the latter.
And history rarely rewards nations that voluntarily step aside in technological revolutions.