Blog

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is undergoing one of the most consequential and likely disruptive transformations in its 121-year history. The agency plans to relocate its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and overhaul its structure and management. According to a Forest Service press release from March 31, the overhaul aims to bring leadership “closer to the forests and communities they serve,” replacing the agency’s long-standing regional model with a state-based structure. At first glance, the rationale seems intuitive. Forest management should be informed by local conditions, local relationships, and decisions made closer to the ground. But that premise raises a more fundamental question: what happens when the scientific infrastructure that informs those decisions is dismantled at the same time?

The pursuit of idiosyncratic grievances and obsession with exerting unconstrained power have been the hallmarks of President Trump’s second term so far. But it was only last week, during a pair of congressional hearings, that the American public received its first real introduction to the obscure administration official largely responsible for translating Trump’s worst impulses into action: Russell Vought.

On April 18, The New York Times dropped a bombshell with a story that offered a unique window into the political inner world of the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on a series of leaked memos, the story retraces the events leading up to the Court’s extraordinary decision to halt the enforcement of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, even while the case was still pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In early April, The Washington Post published an op-ed trashing state and local efforts to hold Big Oil and Gas accountable under the law for the lies they told about their products’ connections to climate change and damages they inflict on people and the planet. I submitted a letter to the editor presenting counterpoints to the op-ed’s claims, which included the absurd notion that insulating some of the biggest companies on earth from even a small measure of justice is somehow a vital “national security” interest. The Post chose not to run that letter, so I’m sharing it with readers here.

Two congressional hearings this week will put President Donald Trump’s budget proposal under the microscope, but the real story should be the administration official sent to defend it: Russell Vought. His rare appearance before Congress will give committee members a unique opportunity to confront the administration on the full range of its anti-constitutional, illegal, and otherwise harmful actions — provided they seize it.

We mourn the lives of all Iranian civilians and U.S. service members lost in the illegal preemptive strike on Iran, and that of all civilians killed and hurt in subsequent strikes in the region. This war is continuing to fuel broader conflict and instability in the region and around the world. We join every American who objects to this war. Our planet can be a beautiful place, and stewarding and protecting all of its inhabitants and its natural resources is our noblest calling.

How has the local renewable energy ordinance landscape changed since mid-2023, the last time we took stock of this fast-moving policy issue? It turns out a lot has happened since then. In our latest analysis, we address this question by summarizing the major trends across the Lower 48, including a comprehensive update of our local ordinance database. This update provides advocates, journalists, researchers, and county board officials with valuable information, in an open and accessible way. With it, we seek to empower stakeholders with critical data in our efforts to ensure that the clean energy transition not only happens, but that it does so consistent with just transition and energy democracy principles.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overturned its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles endanger human health and welfare. EPA argued that it lacked the legal power to regulate these greenhouse gas emissions. As I have written elsewhere, EPA’s arguments are difficult to square with a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts v. EPA.

The other shoe has dropped with the announcement of the final rule repealing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. The Trump administration has the nasty habit of announcing new regulations before posting them. That means that for the moment, we are limited to the EPA press release.