Federal Climate Policy
Nightmare on Penn Ave (Part 2)
After a year of Trump 2.0, here’s how things stand.
Eight years ago almost to the day, I wrote a post titled, “One Year and Counting.” I was writing at the end of Trump’s first year in office. And here we are again, one year into a second Trump Administration. Trump’s basically deregulatory strategy has remained largely unchanged. But there are some notable differences in the situations then and now. I closed my 2017 post with this: “One characteristic of the Trump Administration is a ceaseless stream of controversies and dramas. But generally speaking, the amount of actual legal change has been much more limited, because the system is designed to provide checks on administrative and legislative action.” It remains to be seen how well those checks will function this time around.
CONTINUE READINGWait — WHAT??
Science funding has been spared the worst cuts for now, but don’t believe the hype — and know that the White House has more tricks up its sleeve.
The topline headlines look great: CNN: Trump wants to slash funding for federal climate and weather research. Congress is about to tell him ‘No’ Reuters: US Senate passes bill to boost federal science spending after White House sought major cuts NBC: Congress passes bill to fund U.S. science agencies, rebuffing Trump’s requested cuts And there …
Continue reading “Wait — WHAT??”
CONTINUE READINGThe U.S. Has Now Become a Rogue Nation
By pulling out of the UNFCCC and dozens of international organizations, Trump has isolated the United States and ceded influence to China and the EU.
In the past few days, Trump has kidnapped the head of state of Venezuela, threatened to invade Greenland, and withdrawn from a 1992 climate treaty negotiated by George H.W. Bush. The treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been the basis for international climate cooperation for the past thirty years, including the Paris Agreement. In addition, Trump is withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will make it harder for American scientists to contribute to the periodic reports on the state of climate science. Trump’s action is basically a big middle finger toward the rest of the world. If anyone wins from this, it’s China, which can now claim to be the responsible adult in the room.
CONTINUE READING2026: The Year Ahead
Here are six big things to watch.
What to watch for environmentally in 2026: court tests of Trump’s power, midterms, China, grid issues, and state energy moves. In 2025, Trump rolled out new initiatives at a dizzying rate. That story, in one form or another, dominated the news. This year, much of the news will again be about Trump, but he will have less control of the narrative. Legal and political responses to Trump will play a greater role, as will economic developments. Trump’s anti-environmental crusade could run into strong headwinds.
CONTINUE READINGThat Was the Year That Was
2025 had a lot of bad environmental news, but also a few rays of hope.
2025 has been a dark time for Americanswho care about the environment. Rather than being a repeat of his first term, which had been bad enough environmentally, Trump’s second term has been a tsunami of bad news. Besides some outright rollbacks, Trump has done his best to purge the government of programs and people implementing environmental law. Much of that has been illegal but effective anyway. The demolition of the East Wing will be remembered as a defining moment, the perfect metaphor for an Administration that has religiously embraced the motto, “move fast and break things.”
CONTINUE READINGGames Deregulators Play
Here are the six moves the Trump EPA consistently uses to justify deregulation.
If you start reading the Trump Administration’s arguments for deregulation, a repetitive feeling soon sets in. Every deregulation is different, of course, but there are stock arguments that seem to surface again and again.These arguments have a distortion effect, blurring the benefits of regulations while magnifying their costs.
CONTINUE READINGThe CAFE Rollback Is Audaciously, Aggressively Awful
The proposal even rolls back standards that the first Trump Administration set.
This morning I blogged about some wonky reactions to the Trump/NHTSA rollback of the CAFE standards. Now I want to step back and highlight just how truly bad the new set of standards is, based on incredibly aggressive legal interpretations. As my first post highlights, the standards are set for ten years despite statutory language …
Continue reading “The CAFE Rollback Is Audaciously, Aggressively Awful”
CONTINUE READINGSome Early Thoughts on the Dismantling of CAFE Standards
In short, the new standards are full of legal problems (and substantively awful).
It’s hard not to take personally this week’s overturning of the Biden Administration’s CAFE standards, and their replacement with standards that will, if finalized, reduce the projected average miles per gallon of the fleet from over 50 MPG to 34.5. The Biden standards were among my proudest accomplishments while serving at NHTSA (along with increasing …
Continue reading “Some Early Thoughts on the Dismantling of CAFE Standards”
CONTINUE READINGRed States and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce are Climate Champions?
The hypocrisy in Iowa v. Wright is nauseating.
Guess which parties made the following arguments about climate change in a recently decided Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Iowa v. Wright? A group of red states and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AMFREE). The case involves an obscure but important formula, known as the Petroleum Efficiency Factor (PEF), applied when automakers …
CONTINUE READINGThe Lingering Legal Issue of California’s Limits on Vehicle Emissions
The issues are complex, but the state has some strong legal arguments on its side.
The odds are high that the Trump Administration will withdraw California’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks – and along with it, California’s effort to become all-electric. This is a crucial issue for the state because transportation accounts for about 40% of the state’s emissions. It’s also crucial for the other states have exercised the option of adopting California standards. The issues are complex, involving an unusual statutory scheme. Here’s what you need to know, and why I think California should win this fight.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
