Blog

This excerpt is from a commentary originally published in The Conversation. In recent years, at least two dozen local and state governments have sued petroleum companies to recover the billions in costs they have incurred responding to and rebuilding after flooding, storms and wildfires – all of which have been worsened by changes to the […]

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.

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.

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.

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.