Trump Administration
In Harm’s Way
Agency’s efforts to repeal harm definition for the ESA carries significant legal risks
The Trump Administration has finalized a rule that would eliminate the definition of harm from the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harm is one component of the definition of take in the ESA, and Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of members of endangered species. As I noted last spring, when the …
Continue reading “In Harm’s Way”
CONTINUE READINGScreaming in the Wilderness
More is screaming needed.
It is no surprise that, in the past couple of weeks, the Trump Administration has moved to gut habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act, opening wilderness areas to mining and oil drilling, and to eviscerate Monument designation for most of two wilderness areas in Utah. Trump and his allies made their intentions clear in …
Continue reading “Screaming in the Wilderness”
CONTINUE READINGBring Back “Trump Classic”
The original version of Trump was bad. The current version is much worse.
Trump has succeeded in his second term in making every past President including even himself look better. We’re now almost a year and a half into Trump’s second term. From almost every point of view, it’s worse than his first term. It reminds me of the “New Coke” that Coca Cola once introduced, which was a disaster that led to the reintroduction of what was then dubbed “Coke Classic.” Trump Classic was committed to fossil fuels and eliminating environmental protections. But in almost every respect, his policies were less radical and his methods were less drastic.
A Trump Rollback Hits a Roadblock
A Trump gambit to undo a key air pollution limit turned out to be a flop.
The Administration has moved more slowly, however, on actually wiping Biden’s regulations off the books. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit decisively rejected one important effort by the Trump EPA. In doing so, it saved (at least for now) a crucial protection for public health. While it’s not impossible to imagine that the Supreme Court might intervene, doing so would probably require it to hear oral argument, given the importance and complexity of the case. That’s unlikely to happen quickly and may not happen at all,
CONTINUE READINGProject 2025 Was Awful. Trump Has Been Worse.
Trump disowned Project 2025. In retrospect, it seems like he considered it too moderate.
When the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025, there was a big hullabaloo, and Trump quickly disowned it. Bad as it was, however, it appears Project 2025 apparently failed to anticipate the full sweep of Trump’s second term. Many of Trump’s actions mirror Project 2025 recommendations, but in some key areas he’s gone much further. Here …
Continue reading “Project 2025 Was Awful. Trump Has Been Worse.”
CONTINUE READINGThe Environment Dies in Darkness
Suppressing the rights of free speech and association is deadly to environmental protection.
It’s not a coincidence that the title of this post is taken from what used to be the motto for the Washington Post until its billionaire owner decided that democracy was not, after all, a priority. Because of the inherently collective nature of environmental protection, democracy and environmental protection are inseparable. The government’s efforts to suppress opponents have a cumulative effect, creating a climate of repression. If we want to fight global warming, we also need to fight the chilling effects of repression on First Amendment freedoms.
OMB’s New Grant Regulations: A Deeper Dive
A close look at OMB’s proposed rule only heightens concerns.
Is OMB’s proposed rewrite of federal grant regulations as bad as it sounds? Sadly, the answer is yes. Below, this posts takes a close look at some key provisions in the regulations. Some raise constitutional problems. Others are merely bad policy, undermining merit review, deterring valuable research, and skewing research toward the politics of the moment.
CONTINUE READINGOMB’s “Reforms” versus NSF’s Statutory Mission
NSF will need to do some serious explaining about how the “reforms” advance its scientific mission.
In terms of DEI, section 1861p-14(7) says that one factor in assessing grants is “expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.” Section 1855a also authorizes the Foundation to support activities to encourage women qualify for and then pursue careers in STEM. Section 1855b contains similar language about the “participation of minorities” in science. How is the prohibition on DEI consistent with these provisions? If not, does the agency now believe these provisions are unconstitutional and if so, one what grounds?
CONTINUE READINGWhy 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.”
Join Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
