Trump Administration
Why Does the Trump Administration Keeping Attacking Science?
Apparently, the Administration views science as fatally infected with woke ideas and lacking much other value.
Make no mistake, the Trump Administration is engaged in a serious, carefully honed, effort to undermine American science. The National Science Foundation has lost a third of its staff, while the National Institutes of Health have lost 20%. EPA’s science office is being shuttered. Trump’s proposed budget included a 54% cut for NSF, 12% for NIH, and 46% for NASA’s space research. And last week, the government proposed changes to politicize research funding decisions at the expense of merit review. It also proposes making continuation of long-term funding dependent on political whim, which will drive researchers away from projects taking longer commitments.
CONTINUE READINGStatutory Language? Who Cares About Statutory Language?
A new DOE guidance seems flatly contrary to the statute it’s acting under.
The Department of Energy has issued new guidance that cuts off rebates for people who replace a gas furnace with a heat pump. Under the new guidance, the rebate will be allowed only if the heat pump replaces an electric furnace. Unless I’m missing something, the statute creating the program says the exact opposite. I suppose maybe at this stage I should find this blithe lack of concern for legality unsurprising. Maybe I haven’t adjusted to the Trump era as much as I’d thought. The rebate program specifically covers “any “project that includes [among other things] … the purchase or installation … of an electric heat pump … to replace a nonelectric appliance.”
The Latest Step in Trump’s War on Science
OMB’s proposed new rule seeks to politicize research funding across the entire federal government
Last week, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a sweeping new regulation of grants across the federal government. Here are two quick takeaways. First, OMB gives every sign of realizing it is on shaky legal ground. Second, the OMB rule seeks to continue Trump’s 2025 campaign to rip apart research funding. The goals of that campaign were to destabilize scientific research; squelch research on forbidden topics like climate change, clean energy, race, and gender; and inhibit academic criticism of the Administration. The legal basis for the 2025 campaign was dubious, resulting in serious litigation setbacks. OMB is now trying to create a foundation for making the war on science permanent.
CONTINUE READINGAmerica the Beautiful — Not Beautification Projects
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
If you braved one of America’s most iconic national parks this weekend, you may have a new appreciation for the meaning of Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous line that “hell is other people.” At Yosemite, visitors reported waiting up to two hours just to enter the park and once they made it through, they were greeted by …
Continue reading “America the Beautiful — Not Beautification Projects”
CONTINUE READINGThe Compelling Case for Clean Energy Subsidies
There’s a solid economic case for government support
Tax credits and direct subsidies sound like handouts. That’s not true in the case of renewable energy and electric vehicles. No should feel bashful in advocating for these subsidies. They provide very real benefits to society, not just to the shareholders in a few firms. Tax credits and subsidies. like those that were contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, will help us avoid many billions of dollars a year of harm to our environment and health. They will also make America competitive in what are clearly the industries of the future, rather than abandoning the field to China.
CONTINUE READINGGas Pains
Higher gas prices are inflicting real pain on lower-income families.
Commentators seem bemused by the intense political reaction to gasoline prices, which are up by about a dollar a gallon due to the war. No doubt the reaction is accentuated because gas prices are highly visible. People buy gas frequently and even more frequently see signs posting the prices. But to a greater extent than many in the upper income distribution appreciate, the actual economic pain is very real. Current price increases presumably won’t be permanent, but the problem isn’t going to go away quickly and might well get worse.
CONTINUE READINGHow Trump Is Boosting Clean Energy Everywhere Else
It’s partly the Iran war. But there’s also another reason.
One of the winners from Trump’s presidency has been the clean energy industry. He’s had some success in his U.S. campaign to slow clean tech, but the global picture is quite different. If anything, Trump is boosting the energy transition outside the United States. We are still the world’s largest economy, but we’re only 15% of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity). The rest of the world no longer dances to our tune.
The Iran War has been Trump’s most notable contribution to the global energy transition. Chinese solar exports doubled in a single month, an incredible surge. The war has been a sobering lessen to many countries about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
Trump versus Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA’s disavowal of CBA is the culmination of a longer assault.
EPA recently 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 be still 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 Trump took office in 2017. 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.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s FEMA Review
Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. Its basic strategy is flawed.
After much delay, Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. While the report has some good ideas, much of it resolves around the same strategy: move current problems from the federal government to the states rather than fixing them. Moving responsibilities around doesn’t make them go away. And the reality is that many states will be unable to manage these tasks efficiently. They also lack the federal government’s capacity and economies of scale. And while the federal government will do less itself, it will become more intrusive on state operations, so there’s no clear gain in terms of federalism.
CONTINUE READINGThe 2026 Election and the Environment
Trump will still be able to take a lot of anti-environmental actions. But not as many as today.
I published a post a week ago about prospects for the upcoming 2026 elections. I didn’t say much, however, about why the results will matter for the environment. No matter what happens electorally, Trump will still be in the White House and able to use executive powers to favor fossil fuels and bulldoze environmental protections. Nevertheless, the elections could still make a real difference in environmental terms. Even just taking the House would matter, but there are additional potential environmental gains if there are power shifts in the Senate or governorships.
The best way to understand the shifts is probably to look at what Trump has been able to do with the support of Congress and then consider how the situation would shift if Democrats take one or both Houses.
Join Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
