Blog

A sleeper provision in one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders attempts to revolutionize the way the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) operates and cut environmental review to a minimum.

The U.S. Congress is back and the U.S. House of Representatives is already roiling, as exemplified by the lobbyists and pundits who trail members and staff through the halls and into their offices. Republicans are already desperate to regain momentum after tripping out of the starting gate, even astride their newly minted control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—a “trifecta” in Washington lexicon. Many backroom negotiations are inevitable, and the idea that a massive legislative package will be easier to pass could run into the reality that members will want innumerable concessions to take tough votes. The process will bog down, and Republicans must find something else to do. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already fingered the most promising possibility—killing Biden Administration rules under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows narrow majorities in Congress to pass “resolutions of disapproval” for recently issued final rules.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

In what could turn out to be another loss for environmental protection in the Supreme Court, the Court is about to decide a major case about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, has important implications for issues such as whether NEPA covers climate change impacts. The same groups that succeeded in drastically cutting back on federal wetlands jurisdiction a few years ago are hoping to do the same thing to environmental impact statements. This post will provide the key background on the case.

Pending House spending bills confirm that conservative members of Congress are all in on Project 2025. Specifically, I reviewed the nearly 500 “poison pill riders” that have been crammed into those measures, and I found over 300 that were aimed at advancing specific recommendations contained in Project 2025’s comprehensive policy blueprint.