The attempts made by previous government is wiped out in a day. Monday’s issuance is just a part of broader weakening of environmental commitment by Trump. Internally, Trump suspended the financial support and tax preferences to green industry introduced in Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJB). He also planned to abolish EPA’s electric vehicles (EVs) mandate, which required automakers to cut GHG emissions 56% by 2032. Abolishing this mandate means it won’t be urgent for automakers to accelerate their electrification transition, which could slow down the clean energy transition in the US. Instead, he promised to increase the production of fossil fuels. Externally, in January 2025, Trump removed the US from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time. The White House further declared that the US would immediately withdraw from any commitment made under the UN framework on climate change, including financial plans. Besides, Trump issued an order to impose a 25% import tax on all steels and aluminums entering the US, which would increase the package costs of canned foods and drinks, incentivizing companies to switch back to plastic packages.

Alongside with Donald Trump’s bad using experience with the paper straws, there were many other reasons that contributed to his “anti-environmental protectionism”. The White House announcement on 10^th February claimed that “Paper straws use chemicals that may carry risks to human health – including “forever chemical” PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which are known to be highly water soluble and can bleed from the straw into a drink” while by contrast there was no PFAS found in plastic straws. In fact, Trump had expressed his “hatred” to paper straws long before his second presidency and election. In July 2019, thousands of Trump-branded plastic straws were sold in his campaign website. Media had interpreted that Trump was trying to weaponize straws as a tool to criticize the liberals. One argument that Trump and his supporters used was that straw was just a little item while there were many other items made of plastic that were significantly larger, yet not targeted by the prohibition, showing that the democrats were doing it “just for show”, just like the Republican strategist Brad Blakeman told the media that “straws have become the strawman for environmental misguided policies of the left”. He and some of his republican colleagues managed to label the use of paper straw as a ridiculous repression. By doing so, Trump strengthened his political symbol of anti-political correctness, which aligned with the conservatives’ attitudes of against excessive environmental protection, meanwhile stirring up the conflicts between ordinary people and the left-wing liberals, as their policies “forced” them to use the expensive but uncomfortable paper straws.

Trump’s argument to some extent seems to make sense. For example, in China 2019, the total weight of plastic garbage was 818.4 million tons, while the wasted plastic straws only weighted 30000 tons, which was a very small proportion. However, some argued that the meaning for the plastic straw prohibition was not only about the pollution brought by the straw itself, but the symbolic effect in tackling all plastic products. Meanwhile, from the democrats’ perspective, this action could demonstrate their environmental protection stance to the liberal voters, at the same time did not severely harm the interest of the plastic industry as a whole.

The incentives for Trump’s advocation of plastic was far more complex. Besides ideologically challenging the liberals’ stance, this action help weakening federal’s responsibilities in environmental protection, so that he could spend most of his administrations to economics. Compared to the abstract environmental protection agenda, economic benefit is more direct to the majority of voters. Further, by demonstrating the effect of local policies at the federal level, it could pave the way for deregulations of environmental protections in conservative areas at the state level.

Meanwhile, Trump seeks to boost the petrochemical industries by “going back to  plastic”. Most of the plastics are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels. For example, ethylene and propylene are key ingredients to produce many common plastics, such as polyethylene and polypropylene, and these chemicals are mainly derived from the refining process of oil and natural gas. Therefore, oil and gas producers are also involved in plastic production, forming a highly integrated supply chain. Many large oil companies, such as ExxonMobil and Shell, run both oil extraction and plastic production businesses. The oil industry in the US had pinned its hopes on growing demand for plastics to boost the petrochemical industry. However, with the society focus on plastic pollution and the adoption of corresponding measures, plastic demand growth may be slowed, which brings uncertainty to future investment in the petrochemical industry. Their springs have arrived with Trump’s new presidency. The procurement made by federal government directly increase the profits of the industry, and the attitudes revealed by the policy could further incentivize them to increase productions. 

There are many reasons behind Trump’s advocation for the petrochemical industry. From the perspective of national interest, petrochemical industry has always been a pillar of the US economy. By weakening regulations on fossil fuel extraction, the Trump administration hopes to lower energy costs and make U.S. manufacturing more competitive thus boost economic growth. From his personal or party’s perspective, Trump gained much support from the petrochemical industry. During the election, these industries donated more than 75 million dollars to Trump’s political action committee. He had to return those favors by providing supportive policies.  

While the revival of plastic might help revive the traditional industry and potentially bring short-term economic benefit, it raises urgent questions about America’s commitment to global environmental governance. Trump’s new presidency brings much uncertainty to the environmental protection clause in the US and the rest of the world. The new policy revealed the conflict between populist economics and ecological modernization in the post-carbon transition era.

By Xingchen Liu