By 
- Facing political uncertainty in the Trump era, the U.S. solar industry is strategically rebranding itself as patriotic and economically advantageous, aiming to appeal to conservative values of energy independence and American innovation.
- While solar energy continues to grow rapidly—representing over 80% of new electrical generating capacity added in the U.S. last year—political polarization, misinformation, and fears about loss of farmland or wildlife disruption remain hurdles.
- Experts stress that thoughtful project planning—such as integrating solar with agricultural practices and avoiding sensitive lands—can address environmental concerns and increase solar's broad-based appeal across the political spectrum.
When Seamus Fitzgerald first approaches farmers about installing solar panels, he encounters mixed reactions. Some farmers in the U.S. Midwest see a lucrative opportunity. Others fear losing valuable farmland to what they see as industrial intrusion.
“I find farmers more open when I remind them solar technology was invented in America,” says Fitzgerald, associate director at OneEnergy Renewables. He adds that solar energy, at its core, is about “capturing an American resource, right here at home.”
A view of some of the 749,088 solar panels at the California Valley Solar Farm near. (SFGate)
This pitch is part of a broader effort by the U.S. solar industry to recast itself in terms friendly to conservative values, even aligning itself with former president Donald Trump’s rhetoric of “energy dominance.” The Solar Energy Industries Association now promotes solar power with imagery of American flags and messages touting independence from foreign energy sources.
Currently, solar provides about 6 percent of U.S. electricity but has seen rapid growth. Last year alone, it accounted for over 80 percent of new electrical generating capacity added in the country. Despite its popularity—with 78 percent of Americans supporting more solar development—political uncertainty looms.
After Trump’s election victory, the future of solar incentives became uncertain, threatening investments in the sector. Wood Mackenzie, a global analytics firm, recently predicted a possible slowdown in solar projects, citing “waning incentives” and shifts toward less ambitious climate policies.
Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan environmental economics group, notes that “market uncertainty is currently as clear as a snowstorm in D.C. at midnight.”
Despite this, Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, remains optimistic. “President Trump has specifically said he loves solar,” she says. “As energy demands soar, solar remains the quickest and cheapest solution.”
Donald Trump. (Credit: CREDIT: ALEX BRANDON/AP/SHUTTERSTOCK)
Yet the solar industry is facing deeper challenges beyond politics. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center revealed Republican support for solar farms has dropped significantly—from 84 percent in 2020 to 64 percent in 2024. Misinformation campaigns, suggesting solar energy is unreliable, have contributed to this decline.
Critics also highlight valid environmental concerns. Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San Jose State University, acknowledges that poorly planned solar developments can disrupt habitats or affect prime farmland. However, he stresses these issues are manageable through careful site selection.
“Solar farms can coexist with agriculture and wildlife,” Mulvaney explains, citing examples where sheep graze between panels or wildlife migration paths remain undisturbed.
In Canada, regional variations also play a role. Alberta has embraced solar expansion due to ample sunlight and pro-business policies, whereas Ontario has seen political pushback tied to past energy controversies.
The takeaway for Canadians and Americans alike? Fitzgerald believes emphasizing economic benefits and homegrown energy independence can bridge political divides.
“Every politician should embrace solar,” he says. “It’s American energy, captured right here at home.”
We used this article published in the WIRE as a primary source for the story.
Comments