From announcements of green technologies to the repeal of regulations and the firing of scientists – moves that undermine the foundations of environmental and public health protection. Inside Climate News investigation
The article summarizes research by a website Inside Climate news Under CC4 license
The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have been marked by a series of executive orders and legislative actions that have unprecedentedly weakened environmental and public health protections in the United States. From orders to repeal air and water pollution regulations to removing critical funding from agencies tasked with enforcing them, these actions are undermining the gains made over the past fifty-five years and are degrading the quality of life of millions of citizens.
On April 24, Earth Day, the White House released a document titled “On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows the Science,” which highlighted alleged steps to promote carbon capture technologies and support nuclear energy, along with reducing “wasteful regulations” — including easing emissions regulations on coal-fired power plants — and halting offshore wind projects.
Manish Beppen, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, described the repeal of the regulations as “the most serious attack on the environment and public health in modern history.” He said that if these moves remain in place, it will take generations to repair the damage. Senator Sherold Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Health, also stated that “the Trump administration’s attacks on clean air, clean water, and sustainable energy have made him the least popular president in his first 100 days in office since this type of public support measurement began.”
One of the most notable decisions was the president’s announcement of a second U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change, a move that cuts the country off from international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, strict regulations aimed at reducing emissions, including pollution regulations for advanced vehicles and carbon regulations for coal-fired power plants, were repealed, allowing the largest emitters of pollutants to operate without significant legal obligations.
The environmental justice blow was particularly severe. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) froze millions of dollars in environmental justice grants that were intended to support air quality monitoring, lead exposure monitoring, and community projects in pollution hotspots. The “EJ Screen” mapping unit, which provided an online tool to identify areas most vulnerable to pollution, was dismantled, and dedicated environmental justice programs were largely eliminated. The Justice Department even ordered the closure of environmental justice offices, a move that exacerbated the harm to vulnerable populations who are more exposed to pollution and who are waiting for assistance.
The changes did not stop at the Environmental Protection Agency. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suffered cuts that cut oceanographic research and hydrological monitoring, undermining scientists’ ability to plan responses to floods and water crises. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) laid off more than 200 experts on environmental issues and heat waves, reducing its ability to assess and prevent respiratory and heart diseases linked to pollution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also ordered the end of all activities related to climate change research and the use of the term “climate change,” while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) closed the “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” program that provided grants for projects to strengthen against fires and floods.
Public land management is also at the forefront of the changes. The National Park Service (NPS) has laid off about a thousand employees, while the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has reduced its workforce by about 10 percent. At the Department of the Interior, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has been given the authority to recommend steps that eliminate regular approval processes in favor of “efficiency” — a move that has raised concerns about rushed processing and cuts to environmental impact assessment processes.
In the agricultural sector, it was agreed that billions of dollars earmarked in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act to support farmers in adopting climate-friendly practices would be completely frozen. The Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities program was canceled, and a new program was established in its place that requires participants to remove Diversity and Equity (DEIA) elements from their records. Lawsuits were filed against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), claiming that the country owes about $2 billion to more than 22,000 farmers who have not yet received conservation and energy efficiency grants.
Experts warn that government investments and regulatory relief for fossil fuel infrastructure, such as new oil and gas drilling, have created facilities that will operate for decades and bring the United States closer to remaining at the center of carbon emissions. Damage to global research infrastructure, such as the Argo network for measuring temperature and currents in the oceans, threatens the ability to better understand and prepare for extreme climate events.
In the wake of these moves, environmental organizations from institutions such as the NRDC, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Western Environmental Law Center have filed numerous petitions seeking to overturn harmful executive orders. On the ground, activists and local communities are building databases to track implementation and impacts and planning protests in front of government offices. Polls indicate broad public support for upholding environmental regulations, raising hopes that the courts will step in and restore at least some of the protections that have been eroded.
In conclusion, the first 100 days of the second Trump administration pose a broad legal, political, and social challenge. The decisions to remove key regulations, to cut budgets across the board, and to harm research institutions are a test of the ability of civil society and the legal system to stop a move that could harm future generations. Public debate and legal battles are considered crucial in preserving the foundations of environmental and health governance in the United States.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
