I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.
It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.
As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.
Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.
Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.
Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.