This post was originally published by Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.
EPA has said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might still be subject to cost-benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when President Donald Trump first took office in 2017.
Trump seems to object to two of the three words in cost-benefit analysis. The first is the word “benefit.” Trump either doesn’t think regulations have any benefits or doesn’t care. Thus, starting in his first term, he modified regulatory review to downplay consideration of the benefits of regulation.
The second objectionable word is “analysis.” Analysis involves expertise, data, and reasoning, all of which have the potential to get in the way of ideology and presidential desires. That leaves only the third word, “costs,” which is the only aspect of regulation that influences Trump.
Trump first elevated costs above benefits in his first term with an executive order requiring that one existing regulation be repealed for every new regulation and that any new regulation, even if it was beneficial for society, be halted unless previous regulations of equal cost could be found and repealed.
In his second term, Trump issued a new version of this directive, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” Before any new regulation can be issued, regardless of how great its benefits might be, an agency would need to repeal at least 10 prior regulations, and those regulations had to cost more than the new one. Defenders of cost-benefit analysis like Cass Sunstein correctly pointed out that none of this makes sense if a new regulation passes cost-benefit analysis and increases social welfare.
Trump also indicated the low priority of cost-benefit analysis through his appointments. His first appointment as regulatory czar was a respected conservative legal scholar, Neomi Rao. Trump moved her to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her replacement, serving in an active capacity, was a bright young lawyer with the thinnest of resumes.
So far in his second term, he hasn’t even bothered to nominate anyone to the fill the position. Instead, he appointed Jeffrey Clark, best known for his effort to overturn the 2020 election, in an acting capacity. When the time permitted for the acting appointment ran out, Trump installed Clark as the #2 person, who runs the office in the absence of anyone filling the #1 slot. Finally, Clark left, to be replaced by another lackey. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter, since the so-called “regulatory czar” now seems to be only an office assistant to Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who has worked tirelessly to dismantle government agencies and American science. Notably, Trump’s “10-for-1” deregulation executive order doesn’t even bother with the regulatory czar’s office, instead delegating implementation to Vought.
By 2018, Trump’s executive orders and other administration actions had led me to write a post about “the rise of benefit-blind analysis.” Little did I know what was coming down the road. The second term is shaping up to be a rough ride, not just for environmentalists, but for anyone who thinks analysis should be an important part of government decisions.
Showing 3,000 results
Daniel Farber | May 15, 2026
EPA has said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might still be subject to cost-benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when President Donald Trump first took office in 2017.
Federico Holm | May 12, 2026
It is tempting to think that the threat of the current Congress abusing the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is over, now that the deadline to revisit rules implemented during the previous Congress’s session—provided by the CRA’s unique “lookback provision”—has formally passed. But that would be a mistake, as conservative lawmakers have found novel ways to target agency actions from previous administrations.
Steph Tai | May 7, 2026
The question of which court should hear a case isn’t always as easy as it might seem — and the answer can sometimes make a difference in the potential outcome. For instance, in 2013, the government of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, decided to sue several oil companies for violating a 1978 state law that required a state permit for oil production along the Louisiana coast.
Alejandro Camacho | May 5, 2026
The Trump administration recently repealed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 endangerment finding—the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare that has anchored federal climate regulation for nearly two decades. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin called the finding “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.” Within weeks, a coalition of more than 20 states filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reverse the repeal. The legal battle that follows will help define American environmental policy for a generation. Brigham Daniels and I did not plan the timing of our new book, Lessons for a Warming Planet: A Vital History of US Environmental Law, to coincide with this particular legal conflict. But we could not have chosen a more clarifying moment for its release. The endangerment finding repeal is not an aberration—it is a recognizable recurrence in a history that stretches back centuries. Law has always been the primary engine of both environmental exploitation and protection in the United States.
Bryan Dunning | May 4, 2026
On April 23, the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed lambasting efforts by localities and states to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for decades of misinformation about the dangers of their products. These hazards to the public’s health, welfare, and safety are now coming home to roost in the form of extreme weather, increased flooding […]
James Goodwin | May 4, 2026
On April 24, The Washington Postpublished an op-ed that sought to blame an unusual source for the high energy and gas prices Americans are now facing: justice. Specifically, it claims that these price increases are the result of state and local governments trying to hold Big Oil accountable for the climate-related harms their constituents are continuing to suffer. I submitted a letter to the editor debunking the op-ed’s argument, noting that the real cause of higher gas prices is the illegal war in Iran.
Federico Holm | April 30, 2026
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?
Lemir Teron | April 29, 2026
As the release date of my forthcoming book, Unlearn Power: Strengthening Communities in the Age of Environmental Crisis, approaches, naturally, I've been asked, "What's the book about?" But given the amalgamation of ecological devastation across the planet, with fallout and stakes unevenly felt across socioeconomic lines and underscored by political forces that engage in climate denialism and assaults on democratic institutions, I urge that "Why Unlearn Power?" is the more apropos question.
James Goodwin | April 23, 2026
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.