By The Craig Bushon Show Media Team
The Truth Is Not Hate Speech
Hydrogen isn’t a new idea. It’s the most abundant element in the universe, and it’s been talked about for decades as a clean energy solution. But for the first time in U.S. history, the federal government was putting real, large-scale investment behind it through a program called hydrogen hubs. That plan is now facing major changes — and the story unfolding today could reshape how America competes in the global energy race for years to come.
This isn’t just about politics or climate debates. It’s about jobs, technology, industry, and whether the U.S. will lead or follow in building the next generation of energy systems.
Why Hydrogen Hubs Were Created
The idea behind hydrogen hubs came from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, a bipartisan law that set aside about $7 billion in federal funds to kickstart clean hydrogen production. Unlike smaller grants or research projects, this was designed to be a national build-out, similar in scale to building highways, power lines, or broadband.
A “hub” isn’t just one facility. It’s a network — a cluster of producers, transporters, and users of hydrogen fuel all working together in one region. The concept is simple: hydrogen isn’t useful without infrastructure. A truck can’t run on hydrogen if there’s no refueling station. A plant can’t produce hydrogen profitably if no one is buying it. So hubs were meant to solve that problem by building the entire ecosystem at once.
Hydrogen hubs were also meant to decarbonize industries that are difficult to clean up through electrification alone — such as steel production, cement, shipping, and long-haul trucking. Unlike passenger cars, these heavy-duty sectors need a dense, transportable fuel that can store energy more efficiently than a battery. Hydrogen fits that bill.
How Hydrogen Works and Why It’s Controversial
At its core, hydrogen is just an energy carrier — a way to store and move energy. It can be made in different ways.
-
Green hydrogen is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable energy. It has no direct emissions but is expensive to produce and requires large amounts of electricity.
-
Blue hydrogen is made using natural gas but captures and stores most of the CO₂ produced in the process.
-
Gray hydrogen uses natural gas without capturing emissions and is currently the cheapest and most common method.
The federal program aimed to help the industry transition from gray toward green and blue over time. But this transition comes with real-world complications. Storing hydrogen is difficult because it’s the lightest gas and must be compressed or liquefied. Transporting it requires new pipelines, upgraded infrastructure, and expensive equipment.
Critics argue that the technology is still too costly to scale quickly. Supporters counter that federal investment is exactly what’s needed to bring those costs down, just as government support once made air travel and the internet commercially viable.
One example often cited by energy planners: hydrogen-powered trucking. A single hydrogen refueling station can serve fleets of heavy trucks with minimal downtime. That’s appealing to companies trying to lower emissions without losing operational efficiency. But building just one of those stations costs millions — and without nearby hydrogen production and pipelines, it’s not viable. That’s why a hub model is necessary.
Where the Money Was Going
In October 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy selected seven regional hubs across the country. These included projects in California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, Appalachia, the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Gulf Coast. Together, they were expected to produce about three million metric tons of clean hydrogen per year by the early 2030s.
The California ARCHES hub was focused on renewable-powered hydrogen, tapping into the state’s existing climate programs. The Pacific Northwest hub was centered on clean hydropower. Other hubs used a mix of blue and green hydrogen strategies, depending on the local energy mix and industrial needs.
The federal government pledged $7 billion in total funding, but the real number was much bigger. These projects were designed to leverage more than $40 billion in private investment, creating thousands of jobs in construction, energy production, and manufacturing. State governments also tied parts of their own climate and energy plans to the success of these hubs.
Why the Cuts Happened
In October 2025, the current administration announced it was rescinding $2.2 billion in funding for two hubs — California’s ARCHES and the Pacific Northwest project. These two were the most dependent on green hydrogen production, which is currently the most expensive to build.
The Department of Energy said it is reviewing all seven hubs. Internal reports and leaked lists suggest that other hubs could be scaled back or eliminated as well.
Several reasons have been cited:
Oversight Challenges: A federal Inspector General’s report earlier this year concluded that the hydrogen hub program grew faster than the DOE’s capacity to manage it. In plain language, there weren’t enough trained staff or controls to oversee billions of dollars in complex infrastructure projects.
Economic Viability: Hydrogen is still costly. Unlike oil or natural gas, it doesn’t have an established market. Without long-term contracts or demand guarantees, developers may struggle to make the economics work.
Policy Shifts: This administration is reassessing several large-scale climate and energy initiatives created in previous years, including subsidies and grants. This doesn’t necessarily mean all hydrogen hubs will be canceled, but it signals a significant change in priorities.
Private Sector Confidence: Federal funding was meant to serve as an anchor. If Washington steps back, private companies may reconsider their investments, making it even harder to finance these projects.
Global Context: The Hydrogen Race
This is not happening in a vacuum. Around the world, hydrogen development is accelerating.
-
The European Union has launched a major hydrogen strategy with public funding and mandates to use hydrogen in heavy industry and transport.
-
China is investing billions into hydrogen production and fuel cell technology as part of its broader clean energy strategy.
-
Japan and South Korea are building hydrogen import terminals and fueling networks.
-
The Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, are positioning themselves as hydrogen exporters, investing heavily in production facilities.
If the U.S. slows down or scales back its hydrogen program, it risks falling behind in a key clean energy market that could define industrial leadership in the coming decades.
What This Means for Regular Americans
For most Americans, hydrogen may sound distant or abstract. But the impacts of these decisions are closer to home than they might seem.
These projects were expected to create tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in construction, engineering, transportation, and manufacturing. Many of those jobs would have been in regions trying to rebuild local economies around new industries.
Hydrogen hubs were also meant to strengthen U.S. energy independence. By producing energy domestically, the U.S. could reduce reliance on foreign oil and gas while modernizing its industrial base.
And beyond economics, hydrogen could play a national security role. Energy infrastructure isn’t just about power — it’s about resilience. Countries that control their own energy sources have greater flexibility in responding to crises, supply shocks, or geopolitical conflicts.
If the funding cuts lead to delays or cancellations, that ripple effect will be felt by states, local communities, businesses, and workers who had counted on those investments.
What Happens Next
The Department of Energy has said it is conducting a hub-by-hub review. Some hubs may keep their funding. Others might be reduced or delayed. States like California are already exploring ways to fill funding gaps with their own resources, while private investors are re-evaluating their commitments.
Congress could also step in, either to restore funding or to shift it elsewhere. And industry groups are lobbying to keep the momentum going, warning that delays could undermine confidence in the broader clean hydrogen market.
The final shape of this program will likely take months to emerge — but the signal has already been sent: the U.S. hydrogen strategy is changing course.
Disclaimer
The Craig Bushon Show is not providing financial, investment, or legal advice. This op-ed is for informational and public education purposes only. We aim to explain major national developments in energy policy in a clear and accessible way so Americans can make informed judgments about how these issues may impact their communities, industries, and future.
Hydrogen may not be as familiar as oil, gas, or electricity. But the debate happening in Washington today will help determine whether the U.S. builds its own clean energy backbone — or lets other countries take the lead.
Stay tuned to The Craig Bushon Show for continuing coverage, expert interviews, and plain-language analysis of what these shifts mean for everyday Americans.
