If there were any doubts about the policy priorities of the second Trump administration, these have been swiftly clarified after the first barrage of executive orders (EOs) aimed at deconstructing environmental, scientific, and democratic safeguards.
One of the most extensive EOs is titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which contains a wide array of actions aimed at boosting “America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” This is merely coded language for doubling down on an extractive model of development poised to pump, mine, and log every possible inch of American public lands. Unsurprisingly, it is also aimed at “unleashing” only some types of energy resources: fossil fuels.
Succinctly, the EO highlights some of the main tenets for the new president and his administration’s approach to climate, energy, and the environment: anti-climate change, pro-fossil fuel, anti-renewable energy, anti-EV, anti-energy and water efficiency, and overall anti-nature.
The EO starts with an attack at “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations that have impeded the development of these resources.” This is a lazy fallacy on two counts.
First, it implies that the policies put forward by the previous administration were ideologically motivated, but these are not. But ideology is merely a set of ideas that permeate and shape our understanding of the social and political world, regardless of who is in power.
The second fallacy is the idea that prior regulations have impeded the development of America’s natural resources, and in particular, oil and gas. This is easily disproved by looking at the data. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States has been the biggest producer of oil and gas in 2022 and 2023, accounting for 20% and 22% of global production, respectively.
It’s clear that the expansion of fossil fuels was well underway during the Biden administration, regardless of the metric of interest (jobs, volume, federal drilling permits, and record profits for oil and gas companies). This does not discredit the advancements made during the last four years regarding clean energy deployment, but it highlights the contradictions of the energy transition and severely undermines the claims that the U.S. has somehow let go of its standing as a global energy superpower. This reality is not taken into account in the EO.
The EO also focuses on some issues that resonate widely with many Americans, regardless of their political orientation. A call for focusing on “those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years,” for example, is surprisingly aligned — on the surface at least — with the idea of energy communities. But this is where the similarities end: instead of focusing on how to transition to a low-carbon economy, this administration is focusing on how to double down on fossil fuel extraction.
The EO also takes aim at the permitting process, including provisions regarding the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and a long list of federal agencies, with an eye at expediting permitting and eliminating delays. This is rooted in the belief that it’s the multiplicity of burdensome regulations that impede permitting. But there is a problem with this claim: it’s not true, as the empirical evidence makes clear. There are many bigger obstacles to streamlining permitting, such as insufficient agency resources, high rates of turnover among agency personnel, lack of coordination between agencies, and others, none of which are going to be addressed by an administration that has vowed to fire a significant number of federal workers.
On this topic, the EO requires that “agencies shall use all possible authorities, including emergency authorities, to expedite the adjudication of Federal permits.” Although one could argue that this could result on a higher rate of construction of critical energy infrastructure, such as transmission lines, an excerpt of the EO calls this into question. Its stated goal of facilitating “the permitting and construction of interstate energy transportation and other critical energy infrastructure, including, but not limited to, pipelines” provides a hint on how this will be implemented when it comes to facilitating fossil fuels, electric transmission, and renewables’ deployment.
Overall, the EO signals an appetite for revoking many of the Biden administration’s priorities, including a long list of EOs related to climate and energy, environment, and scientific integrity. The executive order, in many passages, reads more like a manifesto, but it outlines the priorities of the new administration and provides a clear picture of who their allies and foes will be during the next few years.
Showing 2,841 results
Federico Holm | January 27, 2025
If there were any doubts about the policy priorities of the second Trump administration, these have been swiftly clarified after the first barrage of executive orders (EOs) aimed at deconstructing environmental, scientific, and democratic safeguards. One of the most extensive EOs is titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which contains a wide array of actions aimed at boosting “America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” This is merely coded language for doubling down on an extractive model of development poised to pump, mine, and log every possible inch of American public lands. Unsurprisingly, it is also aimed at “unleashing” only some types of energy resources: fossil fuels.
Bryan Dunning, Federico Holm | January 22, 2025
Widely available clean drinking water is something that we usually take for granted. One of the main reasons is that the vast majority of the U.S. population has access to public water systems, which are in charge of providing safe drinking water to their users. However, in many parts of the country, particularly rural communities, people rely on private wells for sourcing their drinking water, which broadly lack regulatory safeguards for public health and well-being. This is particularly striking in Virginia, where 22 percent of the population relies on water supplied by a private well, with the share of private well use reaching upwards of 80 percent of the population in the Commonwealth’s most rural counties. As we explore in a new report, there is little comprehensive information on the distribution and severity of nitrate contamination in private well systems in Virginia.
James Goodwin | January 14, 2025
On January 15, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will take up the nomination of Russell Vought to be president-elect Donald Trump’s Director of the Office of Management Budget (OMB). Vought’s nomination lacks the potential fireworks of Pete Hegseth (Secretary of the Department of Defense), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services), or Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence), but his confirmation hearing will arguably be the most important of all Trump’s nominees.
Daniel Farber | January 2, 2025
President-elect Donald Trump’s picks for office provide a strong hint of what the next year will look like. In Trump’s first term, government actions were often overturned by the courts. Agencies made basic mistakes: skipping mandatory procedural steps, ignoring important evidence, or failing to address opposing arguments. Many people thought he had learned his lesson and would pick competent, experienced administrators this time. They were mostly wrong.
Minor Sinclair | December 11, 2024
The Center for Progressive Reform was founded during the George W. Bush era when Republicans won the White House and controlled both houses of Congress. As a candidate, Bush threatened to put in the crosshairs the nation’s social safety net, public protections, and the government’s role to protect civil rights, consumer rights, the environment, and the common good. The circumstances were similar to those we currently find ourselves in. Then, as now, our job was to secure the system of rules and regulations critical to protecting people from harm and the environment from degradation. Still, we now face challenges that are entirely new.
Daniel Farber | December 9, 2024
They say that history never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. As in many sequels, there will be many things we’ve seen before. Much of that consisted of an all-out attack on environmental law. If you hated the original, you won’t enjoy watching the same thing the second time around. But there are a few additions to the cast and some new backdrops on the set. Today, I’m going to talk about some areas of continuity.
Daniel Farber | December 2, 2024
When the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron, one effect was to raise a crucial question about how courts should apply the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For decades, courts have deferred to regulations issued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The basis for that deference was a bit fuzzy, but now it is much fuzzier.
Daniel Farber | November 15, 2024
This is the final installment in our series of posts about the causation issue under NEPA. In our previous post, we laid out NEPA’s purposes and why analogies to tort law can misfire because that area of law has very different purposes. Today, building on our recent working paper, we explain the functional approach to causation that we believe courts should apply.
Daniel Farber | November 14, 2024
Overall, the Supreme Court has articulated a functional approach that is based on the purposes of NEPA, based on the structure and text of the statute. Today’s post will lay the foundation by discussing NEPA’s purposes and how they differ from those of another area of law often used as an analogy, tort law.