DECODING: Green Credits in the Big Beautiful Bill — How Trump Is Dismantling Biden's IRA

The Big Beautiful Bill and Its Energy Provisions: A Trench Battle in the Senate

Since President Donald Trump called the clean energy tax credits included in the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill a "giant SCAM" and "JUNK" in a post on Truth Social on June 21, 2026, the legislative battle over the legacy of Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has reached an intensity rarely seen in the U.S. Congress. Trump demands the total elimination of these credits. The Senate is resisting, split between hardline conservatives and moderate Republicans.

The stakes are enormous: the IRA, adopted in 2022 under Biden, mobilized approximately $369 billion in tax credits and clean energy investments over ten years. These provisions triggered an unprecedented private investment boom in renewable energy, electric vehicle manufacturing, batteries and energy efficiency — primarily in Republican-leaning states like Texas, Georgia and Michigan. Dismantling them is not merely an ideological choice: it is an economic time bomb.

The IRS Confirms What Is Already Decided: Some Credits Are Already Dead

According to information published by the IRS on June 10, 2026, the Big Beautiful Bill in its current form accelerates the end of several key IRA credits: the credit for new clean vehicles (Section 30D), the credit for used clean vehicles (Section 25E) and the commercial clean vehicle credit (Section 45W) — all eliminated for any vehicle acquired after September 30, 2025. Credits for residential energy improvements (Section 25C) and residential clean energy (Section 25D) are also eliminated for any expenditure after December 31, 2025. These eliminations are in the version adopted by the House of Representatives.

The Senate version, more moderate, provides for a longer phase-out period for these same credits — a technically nuanced but politically crucial difference that determines how quickly investments in clean energy will be discouraged. The House-Senate split on this question reflects a deep disagreement within the Republican Party itself.

Trump presents the energy transition as a "scam" imposed by disconnected climate elites. But the battery factories built in Georgia and Kentucky — often in counties that voted Trump at 70% — are not a scam. They are real jobs, real investments, communities being transformed. Dismantling this momentum for ideological reasons is economic sabotage dressed up as energy policy.

The Byrd Rule and Its Constitutional Implications

The Senate parliamentarian has issued a decisive ruling: the Big Beautiful Bill's provisions on green energy require 60 votes to pass, rather than the simple majority of 51 votes that the budget reconciliation process would allow for certain fiscal measures. This ruling is based on the Byrd Rule, which prohibits including in budget reconciliation provisions whose fiscal effect is merely "incidental" to other policy objectives.

In practical terms, this means that the total elimination of clean energy credits — as Trump demands — would require the approval of 60 senators, including at least 9 Democrats. In an extremely polarized Senate, reaching this threshold for such a politically divisive measure is virtually impossible. Moderate Republicans representing states that benefit massively from IRA investments have no interest in voting for their elimination.

John Thune and the Republican Fracture

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has publicly acknowledged that he does not yet have the votes needed to advance on the controversial provisions of the Big Beautiful Bill. The bill was sent back for revisions, a sign of a legislative impasse that even Trump's usual intimidation tactics have failed to break. Some Republican senators — notably those representing Georgia, Texas or North Carolina, where billions in clean energy investments have created tens of thousands of jobs — are in an uncomfortable position facing the demands of the White House.

The list of companies that have invested massively thanks to IRA credits and that are actively lobbying against their elimination includes industrial giants such as Ford, General Motors, Samsung SDI, LG Energy Solutions, Panasonic and dozens of renewable energy developers. These companies have offices, factories and jobs in key states. Their pressure on local Republican senators is considerable.

The deep irony of this saga is that IRA credits have primarily benefited Republican states. The "green elites" Trump attacks built factories in rural Trump counties. And now the Trump administration wants to destroy exactly the kind of industrial investment it claims to want to encourage. The paradox is striking.

"Harmful to the Environment and Costly": Claims Under Scrutiny

Trump claimed that clean energy credits "harm the environment" and are excessively costly. The first claim is contradicted by the scientific consensus on renewable energy: wind, solar and electric vehicles structurally produce fewer CO2 emissions over their lifecycle than their fossil fuel equivalents. The contrary assertion is not supported by available data.

On cost, the reality is more nuanced. IRA credits have an upfront budgetary cost — estimates range between $300 and $800 billion over ten years depending on modeling assumptions. But these credits also generated more than $3 trillion in announced private investment between 2022 and 2026, created several hundred thousand direct jobs and reduced American dependence on imports of Chinese energy technologies. The purely budgetary argument ignores these multiplier effects.

The Foreign Company Discrimination Strategy

Republican senators are seeking a viable compromise: reducing subsidies that benefit foreign companies — notably Chinese and Korean — while preserving those that directly benefit American investors and workers. This more surgical approach, compared to the total elimination demanded by Trump, would allow budgetary savings while maintaining some of the jobs created.

The Senate version thus excludes from credits facilities using materials from Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOC), a category that includes Chinese, Russian, North Korean and Iranian companies. This approach combines national security objectives with budgetary cost reduction, without sacrificing jobs in the domestic industry. It is probably the most politically viable version, even if it satisfies Trump only partially.

Some criticisms of the IRA deserve to be acknowledged as legitimate: certain credits did benefit foreign companies that created few direct American jobs. But the solution is not total elimination — it is targeted reform. The moderate Republicans defending this approach are doing difficult and necessary political work. That deserves recognition.

Already-Committed Projects: A Risk of Massive Cancellations

The renewable energy and electric vehicle industry has committed enormous investments on the basis of IRA credits. Factories under construction, wind farms in development, solar projects planned over multiple years — all of these projects were financially modeled on the assumption that credits would be available. The precipitous elimination of these credits, without a sufficient transition period, would jeopardize tens of billions of dollars of committed investments.

Industry associations such as American Clean Power and the Solar Energy Industries Association have warned that eliminating credits would trigger a cascade of project cancellations, primarily affecting rural communities and small towns that benefit from these investments. Paradoxically, it would be the Republican strongholds that suffer most — a political reality that certain senators from these states have understood clearly.

American Competitiveness Against China: The Decisive Argument

One of the strongest arguments against eliminating IRA credits is geostrategic: China currently dominates the global supply chain for solar panels, batteries and wind turbines. IRA credits had begun to reduce this dominance by incentivizing manufacturers to build their plants in the United States rather than Asia. Eliminating these incentives would hand back to Beijing a competitive advantage that Washington had just painfully begun to erode.

For an administration that presents itself as resolutely anti-Chinese, this consequence is profoundly paradoxical. If Trump succeeds in eliminating energy credits entirely, he will hand China a geostrategic gift that no Democratic administration would have dared to give. This is one of the arguments that Republicans favorable to maintaining the credits use most effectively in their conversations with the White House.

Whether Trump understands this irony is an open question. What is certain is that the advisers whispering this policy in his ear have made the calculation opposite to that of long-term American national security. China does not need spies when America sabotages itself.

States That Have Chosen Their Side: A Transformed Political Map

Since the adoption of the IRA in 2022, an industrial transformation has been underway in several American states. Georgia has become the global hub for battery production with plants from Hyundai, SK Innovation and Rivian. Texas hosts Tesla gigafactories and massive solar farms. North Carolina is attracting semiconductor and solar equipment manufacturers. These transformations have created entire communities — and electoral bases — with a direct economic interest in maintaining the credits.

For Republican governors of these states — Brian Kemp in Georgia, Greg Abbott in Texas — Trump's demand to eliminate the credits creates an acute political dilemma. They actively attracted these investments with promises of regulatory stability. Reversing course would be a breach of faith toward the companies that invested on the strength of that stability.

Europe and the Race for Clean Energy Investments

The partial or total elimination of American clean energy credits would have an immediate international consequence: it would benefit Europe and Asia in the competition to attract clean energy investments. The European Union, through its Green Deal and national subsidy mechanisms, responded to the IRA with its own clean industry support measures. If the United States retreats, capital that had chosen America could redirect toward Germany, France, Poland or the Netherlands.

This international dimension of the competition in clean energy is rarely mentioned in the American debate, but it is crucial for understanding the long-term stakes. The global energy transition is happening, with or without the United States. The question is who will capture its economic benefits — the jobs, the patents, the dominant companies of tomorrow. The choice Washington makes today will determine its position in that tomorrow's economy.

Europe should watch this American battle with attention mixed with concern and calculated opportunism. If Trump succeeds in dismantling IRA credits, major investments could cross the Atlantic. But an America stepping back from the energy transition is also a less credible ally on long-term climate commitments. And that concerns us all.

Scenario 1: Senate Compromise With a Progressive Phase-Out

The most likely scenario remains the adoption of a Senate version of the Big Beautiful Bill that keeps clean energy credits for longer than Trump wants, with stricter eligibility conditions excluding companies linked to foreign entities of concern. This compromise would allow a display of spending reduction — $300 billion is the figure being discussed — while preserving most of the industrial investments currently underway.

For this scenario to materialize, Leader Thune would need to maintain cohesion within his Republican caucus, senators from beneficiary states would need to hold their positions despite White House pressure, and the 60-vote threshold confirmed by the parliamentarian would need to effectively act as a barrier against the most radical eliminations. The probability of this scenario is high but not certain.

Scenario 2: Deadlock and Indefinite Delays

If Trump maintains his demands for total elimination and moderate senators hold their positions, the result could be an extended deadlock that puts the entire Big Beautiful Bill at risk. Such an outcome would be a major defeat for the administration's legislative agenda. Financial markets, which have priced in a certain probability of the bill's passage, would react negatively to a complete failure scenario.

This scenario, less likely but not impossible, would have the paradoxical benefit of keeping IRA credits in force by default — which would represent a victory for the renewable energy industry. But it would also leave intact other aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill favorable to fossil fuel industries, creating a regulatory uncertainty that is damaging to long-term investment.

Regulatory instability is itself a major problem for the energy transition. Clean energy investors need twenty-year visibility to amortize their projects. When Washington changes the rules every four years according to the political mood of the moment, it sends a disastrous signal to private capital. Trump does not understand — or does not want to understand — that regulatory predictability is a prerequisite for industrial prosperity.

Factories Built in Republican Counties: The Political Contradiction at the Heart of the Debate

One of the most fascinating — and most revealing — aspects of the debate over IRA credits is the geography of the investments they have generated. An analysis published by the organization Climate Power in May 2026 documents that more than 70% of new clean energy projects funded through IRA credits were announced in congressional districts represented by Republicans. Battery factories in Georgia, solar farms in Texas, offshore wind projects across the Midwest — the counties that vote Trump are the ones that have most concretely benefited from Biden's climate policy.

This reality creates an extraordinary political tension for Republican elected officials. On one side, pressure from Trump's White House to support eliminating the credits in line with the party's ideological platform. On the other, pressure from their own constituents — mayors, governors, local business leaders — who see concretely the jobs and investments these credits have brought to their communities. This tension will not be easily resolved by ideological statements in Washington.

Fossil Fuel Workers and the Transition: A Promise Unkept

The dismantlement of IRA credits fits into a broader political narrative: the defense of fossil fuel workers against an energy transition imposed by green elites. This narrative contains a kernel of truth — the transition has real losers in the mining communities of Wyoming, West Virginia or Kentucky — but it obscures the reality that IRA credits specifically included provisions to support these workers through retraining.

The economic transition program for coal communities included in the IRA, with billions of dollars dedicated to the regions most affected by the energy transition, would also be affected by the dismantlement of the legislative framework. The fossil fuel workers Trump claims to defend would therefore not be the direct beneficiaries of eliminating the credits — they would, paradoxically, be among the indirect victims, losing the professional retraining support programs.

Trump's energy populism rests on an impossible promise: defending coal and oil workers while refusing to fund their transition to tomorrow's jobs. This is not industrial policy — it is electoral nostalgia. Workers in coal counties deserve better than promises of a return to a past that will not come back.

Wall Street vs. Pennsylvania Avenue: When Markets Resist Dismantlement

An often underestimated actor in this debate is the world of institutional finance. Pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy projects on the basis of IRA credits. These investments were structured with long-term assumptions about the stability of tax credits. Premature elimination of these credits would create litigation, compensation claims and a loss of confidence in the reliability of American authorities — a systemic risk that financial regulators are beginning to assess.

Institutions such as BlackRock, Vanguard and hundreds of infrastructure-focused funds have exposed their clients to these risks. A sudden withdrawal of IRA credits could generate significant losses in retirement portfolios, directly affecting ordinary American workers through their pension funds. This financial dimension — which extends well beyond energy ideology — is one of the most solid arguments used by opponents of total elimination in the corridors of Congress.

Technology Companies and Their Dependence on Clean Energy

Another front has opened with the entry of major technology companies into this debate. Giants such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Meta have made massive commitments to power their data centers with 100% renewable energy. These commitments are partly motivated by their own sustainability policies, but also by long-term power purchase agreements that allow them to lock in energy costs in a volatile market. IRA credits accelerated the development of renewable energy capacity powering these data centers.

If the credits disappear and renewable energy expansion slows, major technology companies will face higher energy costs and difficulty meeting their climate commitments. In a context where the AI race demands massive investments in computing infrastructure — and therefore in energy — this energy constraint could limit American technological competitiveness. This is an argument that Silicon Valley lobbyists are pressing with insistence on Congress.

There is a delicious irony in watching Trump threaten to dismantle energy credits whose biggest beneficiaries include American technology companies that power his own Truth Social servers. Energy policy and technology policy are now so intimately linked that one cannot be sabotaged without affecting the other. Ideological chaos has practical limits.

Constitutional Safeguards as the Last Line of Defense

The Senate parliamentarian's ruling requiring 60 votes for the most radical eliminations is, paradoxically, one of the best allies of clean energy credits under current circumstances. The American institutional system, with its mechanisms of checks and balances, complex procedural rules and regional Senate coalitions, offers partial protection against the most destructive impulses of presidential politics.

This is not an absolute guarantee. If Trump manages to convince or coerce enough moderate Republican senators, if a procedural maneuver circumvents the 60-vote rule, or if unexpected negotiating elements shift the political calculus, the credits could disappear faster than anticipated. But for now, the legal and political dynamics lean toward partial preservation.

America's Climate Legacy on the Line

Beyond the budgetary and industrial battle, what is at stake in the corridors of the U.S. Senate is the United States' commitment to the global energy transition. The IRA represented the first ambitious climate policy in American history. Its dismantlement would signal to the world — to allies and adversaries alike — that the United States is not a reliable partner on long-term commitments, including those with direct implications for national security and economic competitiveness.

The West needs the United States as a pillar of the energy transition, not for ideological reasons, but for practical ones: American industrial power, its capital markets, its capacity for technological innovation are irreplaceable assets in a race whose ultimate prize is dominance over the decarbonized economy of the 21st century. Letting China win this race by default would be a strategic mistake of the first order.

I am not a blind believer in the energy transition as an end in itself. I am convinced that clean energy is ultimately cheaper, geopolitically safer and less environmentally destructive than fossil fuels. But I am above all convinced that a retreating America is a losing America. And a losing America means its allies pay the price.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.