The 22 members of the board were informed in an email on Friday that they had been “terminated, effective immediately.”

—

The Trump administration has fired all board members of the National Science Foundation (NSF) without providing an explanation for the decision.

All 22 members, who are appointed by the US president and serve staggered six-year terms, received an email from the Presidential Personnel Office “on behalf of President Donald J Trump” on Friday informing them of their dismissal, according to media reports. They were told that their position had been “terminated, effective immediately,” but were not provided a reason.

The NSF is an independent federal agency founded by Congress in 1950. It supports academic research in fields like biology, computer science, math, and social sciences. The NSF board is tasked with publishing reports that help to guide the president and Congress on science and engineering policy. A report about the US ceding scientific ground to China was due to be released following a board meeting set for 5 May, Nature reported. It is unclear whether the report will be published.

‘No Surprise’

Affected and former board members told the media that they were “disappointed” by the unprecedented decision but not entirely surprised. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes that the administration has in mind for the NSF,” Yolanda Gil, a terminated board member who works at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California, told the Guardian.

Some Democrats have also come forward to denounce the move. Zoe Lofgren, a member of the US House of Representatives from California and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said it was “no surprise” that the president, who has openly criticized the foundation since taking office, “would seek to destroy the board that helps guide” it.

Science Under Attack

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has executed a broad assault on science, erasing scientific data and slashing billions of dollars in funding for climate research.

In the early months of 2025, tens of thousands of federal workers were abruptly fired from agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the EPA, the Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of these employees were engaged in vital climate-related research and conservation work, as well as providing essential services like weather forecasting and wildlife monitoring.

The NSF was also affected, losing an estimated 40% of its members to cuts by the administration between January 2025 and February 2026. The Trump administration has also sought to cut $5 billion in funding to its budget last year, although Congress blocked it. Now that the board is gone, these cuts may be easier to execute, some former board members have warned.

Trump is also seeking to dismantle key research centers, including the Colorado-headquartered National Center for Atmospheric Research, which provides critical data on air quality, tools to improve aircraft safety, wildfire mitigation strategies, and forecasts for droughts, extreme precipitation events, and tropical cyclones. Another target is NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, which has been collecting essential data on climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality since the 1950s.

The White House also terminated funding for the US Global Change Research Program, the federal body responsible for producing the nation’s most comprehensive climate reports on the impacts of rising global temperatures. It also shut down climate.gov, NOAA’s primary public-facing website for climate science, and axed NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster dataset, which has provided vital information for first responders, the insurance industry, and researchers to plan recovery efforts and assess weather-related risks.

The cuts extended to international climate efforts as well. In February, the administration pulled the US out of global discussions regarding an upcoming global climate change assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Trump also ordered federal scientists at NOAA and the US Global Change Research Program to cease all work related to IPCC climate assessments, effectively ending US involvement in one of the world’s most critical climate evaluation efforts.

Featured image: The White House/Flickr.

The Endangered Species Committee, comprised of six federal officials including the Interior Secretary, approved a Pentagon’s request for an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for all oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Gulf of Mexico after a 20-minute, closed-door meeting.

—

A panel comprised of Trump Administration officials on Tuesday approved an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for expanded oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Last month, the Pentagon requested that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum convenes a meeting with the Endangered Species Committee to discuss an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for “all … oil and gas exploration and development activities” overseen by federal agencies in the Gulf of Mexico over “national security” concerns. Since its inception in 1973, the law, which requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy critical habitats, has prevented the extinction of 99% of listed species.

On Tuesday, the committee, also known as the “God squad” for its power to decide whether a species lives or dies, approved the request after a 20-minute, closed-door meeting.

Addressing the committee, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the Endangerment Species Act risked “halting or severely compromising oil and gas activity in the Gulf” that are needed to power the country and the military and that the request was a “matter of urgent national security.”

“Recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative,” Hegseth said. But environmental groups say the administration is seeking an exemption to avoid interference to its fossil fuel expansion plans and warn that such an exemption could set a dangerous precedent for future fossil fuel projects.

The committee only met three times since Congress established it in 1978, the last time in 1992. It is led by the Interior Secretary and comprises five other federal officials: the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Species At Risk

It is the first time the committee, which has the extraordinary authority to exempt federal actions that may lead to a species’ extinction from the safeguards of the Endangered Species Act, has been convened over national security reasons, the Center for Biological Diversity said in a press release. The conservation group last month filed a lawsuit seeking to block the meeting, although a judge rejected their request on Friday.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to 20 threatened and endangered species, including sea turtles, sturgeon, manta rays, sharks, and Rice’s whales. The latters are only found in the Gulf and have just 51 individuals remaining after the population collapsed in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“It’s grotesque for Pete Hegseth to use national security as a pretext for giving the oil industry a free pass to wipe out America’s most endangered whales,” said Brett Hartl, Government Affairs Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hegseth is illegally perverting a narrow mechanism within the Endangered Species Act to target the Rice’s whale for extinction.”

Dozens of environmentalists gathered in protest outside the Interior Department on Tuesday, chanting slogans and holding signs that read “Save the Endangered Species Act,” “Fraud Squad” and “Whales and turtles here to stay! Big Oil go away.”

“No Administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever sought such a sweeping exemption from the Endangered Species Act,” said Susan Holmes, Executive Director of the Endangered Species Coalition, which joined the protest. “This closed-door effort to weaken protections for whales, sea turtles, and the Gulf ecosystem is a direct threat to wildlife already struggling to survive. Decisions about endangered species must be guided by science, not politics or corporate pressure.”

Beth Lowell, Vice President of Oceana, an ocean conservation organization, said Tuesday’s vote “puts endangered species on an unnecessary fast track to extinction.”

“For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act has protected endangered and threatened wildlife by ensuring that the federal government reviews projects and provides measures to minimize the threat to species on the brink of extinction. Today’s action reverses this trend by putting profits over protections. It is not what the authors of this bedrock law intended,” said Lowell.

“[The Environmental Protection Agency’s] foremost purpose is to protect human health and the environment. With Administrator Lee Zeldin at the helm, EPA has abandoned its mission, creating damage that will take decades to address,” the open letter, signed by more than 160 US-based environmental and health groups, read.

—

The US Environmental Protection Agency‘s Administrator Lee Zeldin has “betrayed” the agency’s core mission and set a “dangerous” agenda that is hurting public health and the environment, according to an open letter calling for Zeldin’s firing.

The letter, signed by 163 local and national environmental and health organizations, says Zeldin must be held accountable for his actions.

Since taking office in January 2025 following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Zeldin has taken significant and often controversial steps that go against the agency’s stated mission to “protect human health and the environment,” the letter said.

“No EPA administrator in history—Democratic or Republican—has so brazenly betrayed the agency’s core mission. EPA’s foremost purpose is to protect human health and the environment. With Administrator Lee Zeldin at the helm, EPA has abandoned its mission, creating damage that will take decades to address,” the organizations, which include the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Public Citizen and the US Climate Action Network, said in the letter.

Controversial Mandate

Zeldin has been raising eyebrows since his Senate confirmation hearing, where he hesitated to address the agency’s role in reducing US reliance on fossil fuels. When questioned on the 2007 Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA – which established the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants – Zeldin argued that the decision “does not require the EPA, it authorizes it.”

That authority was later solidified in the Obama-era Endangerment Finding, which formally determined that greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health. However, in a highly anticipated move that has nevertheless stunned environmental advocates, the EPA repealed this legal framework last month, labeling it a “radical rule” and the “foundation for the Green New Scam.”

While the EPA claims the repeal will save American taxpayers $1.3 trillion, scientists, politicians, and environmental groups have denounced the move. They argue the rescission will shift the immense costs of climate-driven harm onto families and future generations. At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the agency’s decision.

Many of Zeldin’s actions directly benefit the Trump administration’s anti-climate and pro-fossil fuel agenda. Zeldin himself has repeatedly sought to dismiss climate change as a “cult” and a “religion”, falsely claiming that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil energy production do not “contribute significantly to air pollution.”

Since taking office, he has rolled back dozens of environmental rules, including national air quality standards for particulate matter, limits on wastewater discharges for oil and gas extraction facilities, and regulations on power plant emissions and vehicle pollution. The agency also stopped calculating the monetary benefits of air pollution rules in terms of healthcare savings or avoided deaths, focusing instead on the costs of such rules to industry. 

Dozens of employees were fired as the EPA shut down all 10 of its regional environmental justice offices, which had been instrumental in addressing pollution issues in low-income, historically marginalized, and disadvantaged communities. Experts have warned that the move would leave “those living, working, studying, and playing near polluting industries, smog-forming traffic, and contaminated waterways and soil, with little support from the very agency they rely on to enforce protective laws.”

Zeldin also scrapped roughly $20 billion in environmental justice and clean energy grants, claiming they did not “align” with the agency’s priorities. The grant money was made available through a fund created with former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. It was awarded in April 2024 to eight organizations, which were tasked with financing “tens of thousands” of projects ranging from home energy retrofitting to air pollution reduction. Some of them have sued the administration over the freeze.

More about this: What Happend When the US Awards $20 Billion in Climate Grants, And Then Wants Them Back?

‘Zeldin Must Go’

The EPA’s new agenda is “dangerous” and millions of Americans will suffer as a result, the open letter said.

“Because of Zeldin’s directives, we will suffer more health-damaging air pollution and be exposed to more toxic chemicals in our homes, in our food, in our products, and in our water. Zeldin’s rollbacks will lead to more carbon dioxide and methane pollution that will contribute to worsening climate disasters. Families across the country, whether rural or urban, are already struggling with the consequences of Zeldin’s actions. The damage he is doing will span generations,” it read.

“By corrupting EPA’s mission, Administrator Zeldin has abandoned his sworn duty and betrayed the trust Congress and the American people placed in him. We have seen enough. Administrator Zeldin must go.”

Featured image: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

As part of the deal announced Monday, the French energy company will abandon its plans to build wind farms off the US East Coast.

—

As the widening conflict in the Middle East drives up global oil and gas prices, the US has announced it will pay French energy giant TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to drop two offshore wind projects in the country.

In an unusual move, the Interior Department announced on Monday that it will reimburse TotalEnergies $928 million, the sum the multinational paid the Biden administration for leases in federal waters to build offshore wind farms off New York and North Carolina. TotalEnergies, one of the world’s top six “supermajor” oil companies and one of the 20 largest historical emitters of planet-warming greenhouse gases, promised in turn to reinvest that money in oil and gas projects in the US, including in Texas.

“They don’t like us to develop this offshore wind concession because they have some national security concerns. Not up to me to decide yes or no,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné told CNBC.

The Trump administration cited undisclosed national security concerns when it ordered five other wind farms along the East Coast to halt construction in December. Federal judges have since weighed in, dismissing the administration’s national security claims and ordering construction to resume. One judge called the suspension “arbitrary and capricious.”

Lena Moffitt, Executive Director of Evergreen Action, a climate advocacy group, called the new deal “a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives.” Anne Jellema, Chief Executive of the campaign group 350.org described it as a “handout to polluters” and an “insult to every American household that the government is funneling billions in public funds into the pockets of the oil and gas industry while citizens are being crushed by record-high utility costs.”

The deal comes as US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which unleashed a wider conflict in the Middle East, triggered the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, fueling the world’s worst global energy crisis.

“I suspect that the DOI will do other deals with other companies, so maybe we are the first to open the door, but it’s a matter of win-win situation,” Pouyanné said, adding that investing in gas projects is part of TotalEnergies’ strategy.

TotalEnergies in Court

TotalEnergies is embroiled in lawsuits in Europe for its contribution to global warming. In one, a coalition of French local authorities alongside five local civil society organizations are challenging the company’s continued expansion of oil and gas production despite extensive and indisputable scientific evidence of their impact on global climate. Despite positioning itself as a “major player in the energy transition,” TotalEnergies has plans to increase its hydrocarbon production by 3% per year until 2030, with at least two-thirds of its investments in fossil fuels. A verdict is expected on June 25.

Separately, a Belgian farmer sued TotalEnergies two years ago to seek compensation for the damage that numerous extreme weather events, which he says are a direct result of the company’s activities, caused to his farm. A verdict, initially expected last week, was postponed until September 9 as the court said it wanted to wait for the judgment in the French case.

Last year, a French court found that TotalEnergies misled consumers regarding its climate commitments, marking the first time a court has held an oil and gas company liable for greenwashing.

• Instagram
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Bluesky
• YouTube
• Mail

The suit alleges that the Trump administration’s decision to break up a climate research center in Boulder, Colorado, was part of a “widespread and coordinated campaign of punishment and coercion” against the state’s governor, Jared Polis.

—

The Trump administration broke up a key climate research center in Boulder, Colorado as retribution against the state’s governor, a new lawsuit filed on Monday alleges.

The lawsuit, filed by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), challenges the Trump administration’s decision to shut the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is renowned for advances in the study of weather patterns, including tropical cyclones. UCAR, a non-profit research group made up of colleges and universities that operates the center, alleges that the administration is waging a “widespread and coordinated campaign of punishment and coercion” against Colorado, which started last August over tensions between President Donald Trump and Jared Polis, the state’s Democratic governor.

The administration froze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the state and vetoed a much needed water pipeline as part of the retaliation campaign. This, the lawsuit alleges, stemmed from the imprisonment of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted for breaching voting systems, whom Trump claims is a political prisoner. More recently, Trump has also moved the headquarters of the US Space Command from Colorado Springs to Alabama, falsely claiming that Colorado’s mail-in voting system makes for a “dishonest election”, and has threatened to withhold food stamp benefits from Colorado residents over the state’s refusal to provide personal information about benefit recipients

UCAR is asking the US District Court for the District of Colorado to strike down these actions as illegal and issue an immediate injunction against their implementation to prevent further harm to the center.

The Trump administration announced plans to shut the Colorado-headquartered lab last December, calling it “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country” and a stronghold for left-wing climate activism.

Founded in 1960 and funded by the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency, the NCAR’s laboratories provide critical data on air quality and tools to improve aircraft safety and wildfire mitigation as well as forecasts of droughts, extreme precipitation events and tropical cyclones. Around 830 people are employed there.

Governor Polis previously said closing the center would put “public safety at risk.”

“NCAR delivers data around severe weather events like fires and floods that help our country save lives and property, and prevent devastation for families. If these cuts move forward we will lose our competitive advantage against foreign powers and adversaries in the pursuit of scientific discovery,” Polis wrote on social media. Tim Raupach, Senior Lecturer at UNSW Sydney, called it a “tragedy” and said “a lot of people are safer” because of it.

Featured image: Wally Gobetz/Flickr.

• Instagram
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Bluesky
• YouTube
• Mail

A North Dakota judge last week finalized a $345 million judgment in a lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer over Greenpeace’s role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline a decade ago. The group says the verdict could bankrupt it.

—

Greenpeace has vowed to fight a $345 million verdict over its role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) underground pipeline transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.

A North Dakota District Court judge on Friday validated a $345 million jury award against the environmental group that was reached last year. The case was brought by the pipeline company, Texas-based Energy Transfer, which accused Greenpeace of hindering construction of the pipeline by galvanizing protests at the site a decade ago. Greenpeace has always denied the accusations, saying that it only played a supporting role in the non-violent protests led by Native American groups.

In October, Judge James Gion, who oversaw the trial, nearly halved the amount initially awarded by the jury months earlier to roughly $345 million from $667 million. Last week, he finalized that judgment despite Greenpeace’s request to overturn or at least further reduce the verdict, saying that the jury “must have found the evidence presented by the plaintiffs to be more credible.”

Greenpeace has warned the sum could bankrupt it. The campaign group works as an independent network funded by individual contributions and funding grants. It does not accept money from governments, corporations or political parties, according to its website. In 2023, Greenpeace USA had just a little over $40 million in revenue and support, and about $38 million in expenses, its financial statement shows.

“It’s a dark day for freedom of expression and the environmental movement. But this battle is far from over,” David Simons, Senior Legal Counsel for Strategic Defence at Greenpeace International, said on Friday. Greenpeace has announced it will seek a new trial and appeal the decision at the North Dakota Supreme Court, if necessary.

In a statement, the group said that Energy Transfer had failed to present evidence in support of its claims and that the court admitted “inflammatory and irrelevant evidence” during trial while excluding evidence in support of the defense, adding that the jury “could not be impartial.”

More on the topic: Human Rights Lawyers Condemn ‘Deeply Flawed’, ‘Biased’ Greenpeace $660 Million Trial

Anti-SLAPP Lawsuit

Greenpeace has repeatedly called the accusations baseless and designed to silence the group. It previously called the lawsuit, first filed in federal court in 2017, “one of the world’s most brazen examples of SLAPP.”

SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, have become a common tool to censor, intimidate, or silence critics by burdening them with costly lawsuits, often on grounds that the critiques are defamatory.

In February 2025, in response to “back-to-back, meritless” SLAPP lawsuits filed by Energy Transfer against the group, Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International – a defendant in the case alongside Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund – filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands against the company. The case cites Dutch law as well as the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive. The EU law, which came into force in April 2024, aims to “protect persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’).”

In an extraordinary and unusual move, Energy Transfer in November asked North Dakota’s Supreme Court to block the countersuit in the Netherlands. The case remains pending.

“Through appeals in the US, and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits, and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement,” Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director, said on Friday.

“At every turn, our voices [will] only grow louder as we stand with allies worldwide against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.”

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have implications for dozens of deception lawsuits that have been filed by municipalities and local governments around the country in recent years.

—

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a key climate deception lawsuit against Big Oil, marking the first time the court weighs in on such a case.

The lawsuit was filed in 2018 by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado. They sought damages from two major oil companies – Suncor Energy USA and ExxonMobil Corporation – for the climate change-related damages they sustained, which they argue were exacerbated by the companies. The claimants estimated that it would cost Boulder taxpayers some $100 million until 2050 to adapt the local infrastructure to the escalating impacts of climate change, including storms and more frequent wildfires.

Boulder also argued that the oil companies misled the public about the risks of climate change and knowingly contributed to it by producing and promoting more fossil fuels. Both companies deny wrongdoing.

“Communities like ours are exposed to destructive climate change impacts caused by the actions of fossil fuel companies while they reap record profits,” said Ashley Stolzmann, Boulder County Commissioner. “These companies need to pay their fair share to deal with the climate chaos they’ve created and take responsibility for the climate impacts.”

Last May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the case could proceed toward trial, upholding a state court’s previous ruling that concluded federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims, contrary to what the defendants had argued. In response to that ruling, Suncor Energy and Exxon appealed to the US Supreme Court, urging it to dismiss the case based on that same argument: that climate emissions are a matter of national concern and must therefore be adjudicated in federal court – where similar litigation has historically been dismissed.

On Monday, the justices agreed to review the state’s supreme court ruling. In granting the petition, the justices also asked the parties whether the court has the authority to hear the case.

“Two state supreme courts have ruled on this issue and both have rejected Exxon’s baseless arguments. No part of the Constitution, or any state or federal law, gives corporations the right to lie to the public about the dangers associated with their products simply because those products are fossil fuels,” said Alyssa Johl, Vice President of Legal and General Counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity.

“Today’s announcement makes clear the justices do not agree whether the Court even has the authority to hear Boulder’s case at this time. The Court should uphold what the Colorado Supreme Court and others have made clear: communities like Boulder have the right to seek accountability in their state courts when corporations have knowingly caused local harms,” Johl added. 

The Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected within the nine-month term that starts in October, will likely have implications for dozens of deception lawsuits that have been filed around the country in recent years.

Should the justices rule against the oil companies, it would offer a favorable precedent for numerous ongoing deception lawsuits and for new ones to be filed by municipalities and local governments. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the oil companies would severely threaten these efforts, potentially invalidating over a dozen other active lawsuits based on similar legal arguments.

According to L. Delta Merner, Lead Scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, “[f]ossil fuel companies have repeatedly tried to derail cases by forcing them into federal court, invoking preemption arguments, and delaying discovery.” But recent rulings by state supreme courts and federal judges that allowed deception cases to proceed have begun to crack the defensive wall, Merner added.

You might also like: Paris Court Hears Arguments in Climate Case Against TotalEnergies

Environmental organizations, scientists and politicians say Americans will be less safe and less healthy because of the Trump administration’s decision to repeal the Obama-era endangerment finding.

—

Reactions are pouring in following the Trump administration’s announcement on Thursday that it is repealing the endangerment finding, a landmark scientific finding that determined that greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health and welfare. Issued in 2009 under then-president Barack Obama, the endangerment finding has since underpinned US climate policy and emission regulations.

Speaking from the Oval Office and accompanied by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump said the “radical rule [had become] the legal foundation for the Green New Scam, one of the greatest scams in history.” He added that the policy had damaged the American auto industry, driving up prices for consumers.

While the EPA has said the repeal will save American taxpayer $1.3 trillion, dozens of politicians, scientists and environmental groups have denounced the move, saying it will put lives at risk and shift the costs of harmful pollution onto American families, communities, and future generations. They called the move “illegal” and threatened legal action against the Trump administration. Earth.Org is rounding up reactions. Read the full story here.

Barack Obama – Former US President

Today, the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding: the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules. Without it, we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.

Al Gore – Former US Vice President

The Trump Administration is once again trying to deny science and reality – this time, by throwing out the well-established research connecting the climate crisis to public health. While the Trump Administration can try to ignore the climate crisis, it’s painfully clear that the climate crisis will not ignore us. Last summer, the US experienced a dozen once-in-1,000-year floods in the span of just three days. In Texas, one of those flooding events killed at least 135 people, including 37 children at summer camp. The Trump Administration’s rollback of the endangerment finding is not only a direct assault on science, knowledge, and public health, it is an insult to the people across the country who are already coping with the disastrous consequences of climate-driven extreme weather events. The decision to revoke the endangerment finding is one of the more egregious examples of the Trump Administration prioritizing fossil fuel profits over American lives.

Maxine Dexter – Congresswoman

Trump is stripping the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. I’m the only lung doctor in Congress. But you don’t need to be an expert to know this will have *horrific* consequences for our air, our health, and our future. I will NOT stand back while Trump sells off our future to the highest bidder. We will fight this in Congress, in the courts, and in the public sphere.

Bob Ferguson – Governor of the State of Washington

This federal action is unlawful, ignores basic science and denies what we can see with our own two eyes: Climate change endangers our communities and our health — period. From historic floods to devastating wildfires, Washingtonians have seen the impacts of the climate crisis firsthand. Here in this Washington, we believe in science — and we will not let short-term politics harm the long-term future of our communities.

Nick Brown – Washington’s Attorney General

We can either use what we know to protect our natural resources and environment, or we can invite catastrophe by leaving greenhouse gas pollution unchecked. For the sake of our communities and our future, this illegal action will not go unchallenged.

US Climate Alliance – Governor Gavin Newsom and Governor Tony Evers, Co-Chairs

This action is unlawful , ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution.

Ed Markey – Senator for Massachusetts

Trump’s EPA just repealed the landmark endangerment finding to give polluters a free pass. The science is clear: greenhouse gas pollution presents a clear and present danger to our health and our planet. No amount of denial from Trump or Zeldin will change that.

Environmental Groups, Scientists’ Reactions

Union of Concerned Scientists – Dr. Gretchen Goldman, President and CEO 

Today, Administrator Zeldin took a chainsaw to the Endangerment Finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health. Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok.

Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s wellbeing, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests. Sacrificing people’s health, safety and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable. We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged. UCS stands ready to defend the Endangerment Finding in court and beyond.

Out Children’s Trust – Julia Olson, Co-Executive Director & Chief Legal Counsel

Our Children’s Trust will file a petition on behalf of youth in the D.C. Circuit to reverse this unlawful action as unconstitutional. Congress required EPA to use real science to protect people’s health and safety by controlling pollution, not by unleashing it. Abandoning the Endangerment Finding is a violation of children’s right to life and their fundamental freedom to grow up healthy. This is government-created danger at its worst.

Natural Resources Defense Coucil

Cities are flooding and forests are burning, but the EPA is ignoring both science and the law. By rescinding its own conclusion on the dangers of greenhouse gas pollution, called the “endangerment finding,” the EPA will revoke its authority to control emissions from cars and trucks, the nation’s biggest contributor to climate change. And the EPA is setting the stage to undo restrictions on other climate polluters next, including power plants and oil and gas producers.

They’re ignoring the scientific consensus, mountains of evidence, and communities across the country that have been devastated by stronger hurricanes, bigger wildfires, and unnatural disasters.

We’re already preparing to sue the Trump administration and protect our planet.

The Nature Conservancy – Katharine Hayhoe, Chief Scientist

Since the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued its Endangerment Finding in 2009, the scientific evidence connecting greenhouse gas emissions to health impacts from climate change has only grown stronger. The foundation of that finding has been repeatedly tested and remains robust, while scientific understanding of how rising heat-trapping gases harm human health and well-being continues to expand and deepen.

Over the past two decades, I’ve contributed to this body of research myself—quantifying the risks posed by rising CO2 levels to people, infrastructure and the natural systems we depend on, and authoring multiple U.S. National Climate Assessments. These authoritative and exhaustive reports helped build the scientific foundation that underpins the Endangerment Finding, and their conclusions weren’t based on ideology. They were rooted in rigorous, peer‑reviewed evidence; evidence that has only become clearer with time.

For more than a decade, the Endangerment Finding has enabled the EPA to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allowed other federal agencies to put safeguards in place that protect people’s health. Reversing it wouldn’t change the science—it would only make it harder to mitigate the risks we’re already facing, from extreme heat to flooding and increasingly severe wildfires.

There is also a practical reality. When foundational climate policies are repeatedly questioned, reversed or tied up in legal uncertainty, it becomes harder for families, businesses and local governments to plan for the future. Stability matters. Predictability matters. Maintaining science‑based policies isn’t just prudent—it’s the reliable foundation we need to build a safer, healthier and more resilient nation.

Ocean Conservancy – Fatima Candace Vahlsing, Vice President of Climate

Eliminating the Endangerment Finding is like removing the batteries from a smoke alarm—it won’t stop the fire; it will only leave us more vulnerable. Science-based climate protections safeguard public health, strengthen our economy, and ensure a healthy ocean and a thriving planet, forever and for everyone.

Although this proposal targets vehicle standards, its impact extends far beyond our roads. By removing the foundation for regulating climate pollution, it also threatens our ocean by undermining progress in sectors like maritime shipping, a major and growing source of emissions that affects public health, global supply chains, and coastal livelihoods and economies. This decision creates regulatory uncertainty for America’s ocean economy, which generates more than $500 billion annually. 

Climate Majors – Kate Wright, Executive Director

As the leaders closest to their communities, mayors have seen firsthand the havoc climate change can wreak in their cities, in the form of extreme heat, floods, damages to infrastructure and agriculture, and increased medical costs brought on by inhaling polluted air. More than 50 U.S. cities made clear in their public submissions on this ruling that rescinding these crucial, science-based standards would endanger public health and ignore the lived realities of cities across the country. At a time when families continue to see the burden of climate inaction on their daily expenses, this ruling endangers Americans and moves us further away from the leadership that is needed. While our federal government continues to fail in its basic responsibilities, cities will not stop protecting the health and safety of their residents.

Public Health and Environmental Protection Commissioners Bonnie Heiple and Robbie Goldstein

By rolling back the endangerment finding, the Trump Administration is dismantling one of the most important tools we have to protect public health. We cannot ignore the simple fact that vehicle pollution is bad for people, bad for our environment, and bad for our economy.

Massachusetts communities are grappling with devastating floods, our farms are struggling with unpredictable weather, and our cities are burdened by scorching hot summers. Massachusetts has strong environmental protections, and we have made significant progress in improving our air quality.

The Trump Administration’s decision will disrupt and challenge our progress to address climate change and protect our communities. Seniors, children, and those with asthma will beat the brunt of increased pollution.

ClimateWorks

The repeal of the U.S. EPA’s Endangerment Finding is a profound step backward that puts lives at risk and shifts the costs of harmful pollution from trillion-dollar industries onto American families, communities, and future generations. This move is a rejection of settled science, law, and the will of the American public. Simply put, Americans are more endangered because of this reckless decision.

Zeke Hausfather – Climate Research Scientist at Berkeley Earth

The scientific understanding of human-driven climate change is much stronger today than it was in 2009 when the EPA first issued the endangerment finding. There is no scientific basis for the Trump administration’s decision to repeal it

Featured image: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

The US Energy Department’s secret panel, made up of five climate change skeptics, was tasked with writing a sweeping report criticizing the consensus on global warming. The Trump administration used that report as the basis to propose a repeal of the landmark Endangerment Finding, a scientific determination that provides the legal basis for climate pollution regulations in the US.

—

The Trump administration violated federal law when it secretly formed a climate science advisory group to work on a contencious global warming report, a court has ruled.

The Department of Energy did not publicly disclose that the Climate Working Group, comprised of five climate change skeptics, was behind a report released in July which downplayed the risks of global warming. The report contends that mainstream climate science is exaggerated and overlooks the positive effects of climate change. It wrongly claimed, for example, that sea level rise is not accelerating, and that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will be beneficial for plant growth.

The Trump administration used the report as the basis of its proposal to overturn the Endangerment Finding. Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, the finding determined that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and welfare for current and future generations. This science-based determination served as the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The finding’s repeal is currently under final review at the White House.

On Friday, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said the Energy Department violated federal law by secretely convening the group, which “not merely ‘assembled to exchange facts or information,’ but rather provided substantive policy ‘advice and recommendations’ to the Department of Energy.”

The 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act prohibits federal agencies form recruiting or relying on secret groups to formulate policy.

“The federal court’s ruling is absolutely clear – the Trump Administration violated federal law by secretly convening a group tasked with developing a dangerously slanted report to use as the basis for attacking the Endangerment Finding, the long-standing determination that climate pollution endangers our health and our lives and requires commonsense action,” said Erin Murphy, Senior Attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists sued the Energy Department last year.

“The Trump EPA must immediately withdraw its fundamentally unlawful and forever tainted proposal to repeal the Endangerment Finding, which would impose high costs on the American people who are already experiencing the impacts of pollution-fueled fires, flooding, higher insurance costs, and rising energy costs.”

Featured image: Gage Skidmore.

You might also like: Massachusetts Court Delivers Another Blow to Trump’s Offshore Wind Freeze

From mass firings and climate research funding cuts to the rollback of environmental protections and a retreat from international pledges, Earth.Org examines some of US President Donald Trump’s most consequential actions since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, and what they mean for Americans and the world.

—

2025 was a pivotal year for US climate policy. Since assuming office for his second term, Donald Trump has taken sweeping actions to reverse America’s environmental agenda and withdraw from international commitments. These moves have fundamentally altered the nation’s role in the global fight against climate change, a crisis the President has dismissed as a “con job”.

Unleashing Fossil Fuels

A long-time defender of planet-warming fossil fuels, Trump’s focus has been focused on strengthening ties with the industry in spite of the countless climate commitments the US has made at home and on an international level. From a former fracking executive taking the reins of the Energy Department to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) packed with political appointees who formerly lobbied for the chemical and fossil fuel sectors, Trump has surrounded himself with the right people to execute his anti-climate agenda.

More on the topic: Meet Trump’s Anti-Climate Cabinet

On day one, Trump declared a “national energy emergency”. It came despite the fact that the US had hit record production levels under the previous administration and was currently producing more oil than any other nation in history. The move allowed the administration to reverse many of the Biden-era environmental regulations and open up more areas to oil and gas exploration. And that is exactly what followed.

The Trump administration has moved to maximize oil and gas development in Alaska, reversing Biden-era restrictions on the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and reopening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. He is now looking to take his “drill, baby drill” mantra abroad, having recently unveiled plans to extend his reach to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

In April, Trump signed a series of executive orders aimed at reviving a dying coal industry by expediting leases and streamlining permitting for coal mining on federal land. This contradicts global trends, with nearly 60 countries having drastically scaled back their plans for building coal-fired power plants since the Paris Agreement was passed in 2015. The US itself retired or announced the retirement of hundreds of coal plants. Aside from being the dirtiest type of fossil fuel, coal is widely seen as an uncompetitive and unsuitable energy source, costing significantly more than renewables like wind and solar.

Trump has frequently targeted those renewable sources, missing no opportunity to spread falsities about clean energy. He has called wind turbines “pathetic and so bad” and falsely claimed they are killing people. He also frequently asserts that wind is “the most expensive form of energy,” ignoring data showing it is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels in both manufacturing and electricity generation.

As part of the plan to prioritize fossil fuels, the administration has blocked billions of dollars in funding earmarked for clean energy projects across the US. Several lawsuits were filed in response; many are still ongoing, leaving affected organizations in limbo and unable to carry out their work.

The Trump administration is also going after state laws addressing polluting forms of energy, like California’s cap-and-trade system and climate superfund laws in New York and Vermont.

More on the topic: Two Courts Block Trump Administration’s Attempt to Halt Clean Energy Projects

Lowering Accountability for Polluters

Trump has also rolled back dozens of environmental rules, including national air quality standards for particulate matter, limits on wastewater discharges for oil and gas extraction facilities, and regulations on power plant emissions and vehicle pollution. He also took aim at electric vehicles, halting the distribution of unspent government funds intended for vehicle charging stations under the $5-billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund.

This month, the EPA announced it will no longer calculate the monetary benefits of air pollution rules in terms of healthcare savings or avoided deaths. Going forward, rules for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, and ozone will exclusively prioritize the costs to industry. In a statement reported by media, the agency said it “absolutely remains committed to our core mission of protecting human health and the environment” but “will not be monetizing the impacts at this time.” The decision has drawn sharp criticism from environmental and public health advocates.

“The idea that EPA would not consider the public health benefits of its regulations is anathema to the very mission of EPA,” said Richard Revesz, the Faculty Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

Suppressing Climate Research

Trump’s aggressive rollback of climate action took direct aim at science. In the past year, his administration has erased scientific data and slashed billions of dollars in funding for climate research.

In the early months of 2025, tens of thousands of federal workers were abruptly fired from agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the EPA, the National Science Foundation, the Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of these employees were engaged in vital climate-related research and conservation work, as well as providing essential services like weather forecasting and wildlife monitoring.

The administration has also signaled intentions to dismantle key research centers, including the Colorado-headquartered National Center for Atmospheric Research, which provides critical data on air quality, tools to improve aircraft safety, wildfire mitigation strategies, and forecasts for droughts, extreme precipitation events, and tropical cyclones. Another target is NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, which has been collecting essential data on climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality since the 1950s.

The White House also terminated funding for the US Global Change Research Program, the federal body responsible for producing the nation’s most comprehensive climate reports on the impacts of rising global temperatures. It also shut down climate.gov, NOAA’s primary public-facing website for climate science, and axed NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster dataset, which has provided vital information for first responders, the insurance industry, and researchers to plan recovery efforts and assess weather-related risks.

More on the topic: Climate Group Brings Back Billion-Dollar Disaster Database Axed By Trump Administration

The cuts extended to international climate efforts as well. In February, the administration pulled the US out of global discussions regarding an upcoming global climate change assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). President Trump also ordered federal scientists at NOAA and the US Global Change Research Program to cease all work related to IPCC climate assessments, effectively ending US involvement in one of the world’s most critical climate evaluation efforts.

Retreating From the International Stage

Earlier this month, the White House announced that the US will withdraw from 66 international bodies, conventions and treaties, including key climate treaties, deemed “contrary to the interests” of the country. The list comprises 35 non-United Nations organizations and 31 United Nations organizations – many of which conduct pivotal work on climate change. These include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the global authority providing technical and policy advice to drive conservation, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UFCCC), the primary global treaty for coordinating international climate action.

The announcement drew strong criticism from experts, world leaders, and the scientific community, who warned that the US will be left behind as the rest of the world embraces the energy transition, shifting away from costly and polluting fossil fuels to cleaner and more affordable renewables like solar and wind. The decision was just the latest in a series of moves aimed at retreating the US from international climate commitments.

Over the past year, the US has exited the Paris Agreement, withdrawn from the board of the Loss and Damage fund for developing nations, and abandoned the Just Energy Transition Partnership, a flagship global climate financing program by rich nations to help developing countries quit coal. It also derailed international negotiations for a global shipping carbon levy and actively obstructed talks for a global plastic treaty, which ultimately collapsed in August after the US and several petrostate allies opposed mandatory caps on plastic production. For the first time, the US also did not send any representatives to the COP30 climate talks in Brazil.

Domestic climate financing efforts have also been gutted. Contributions to the Biden-era US International Climate Finance Plan, which leveraged multilateral and bilateral institutions to assist developing countries with climate mitigation and adaptation, were abruptly halted. Similarly, $4 billion in US pledges to the Green Climate Fund – the world’s largest fund dedicated to global climate action –were rescinded under Trump’s administration, further weakening the nation’s role in addressing the global climate crisis.

You might also like: These Companies Are Backtracking on Climate in Bow to Conservatives

Dismantling Environmental Justice Programs

The Trump administration dismantled federal environmental justice initiatives, prioritizing economic deregulation over investments aimed at addressing pollution and inequality in underserved communities. One of its most significant actions was the termination of the Justice40 program. The program was designed to direct federal investments to disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by pollution hazards, wastewater, climate change impacts, and high energy costs.

The EPA also shut down all 10 of its regional environmental justice offices, which had been instrumental in addressing pollution issues in low-income, historically marginalized, and disadvantaged communities. Experts warned that the move would leave “those living, working, studying, and playing near polluting industries, smog-forming traffic, and contaminated waterways and soil, with little support from the very agency they rely on to enforce protective laws.”

The administration also engaged in a widespread campaign to remove, edit, and restrict access to critical data tools used for monitoring environmental, climate, public health, and demographic information. These tools were essential for identifying and addressing the needs of marginalized communities, leaving advocates and researchers with limited resources to track and address systemic environmental injustices.

Rolling Back Animal and Nature Protections

The Trump administration moved to roll back key protections under the Endangered Species Act, which has safeguarded plants and animals since the 1970s and is credited with preventing the extinction of hundreds of species. One significant change was the elimination of the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule”, which automatically provided protections for species listed as “threatened.” The law has been credited with preventing the extinction of hundreds of species.

Trump also ordered the removal of key protections to allow commercial fishing in parts of the nearly 500,000-square-mile Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument, located about 750 miles west of Hawaii. Home to protected and endangered species, including turtles, whales and Hawaiian monk seals, the area has long been off-limits due to its ecological significance. The administration argued that marine protected areas put American commercial fishermen at a disadvantage, despite evidence from studies showing that these areas benefit both marine ecosystems and fishermen by allowing overfished species to recover.

It wasn’t a good year for national parks either. Since Trump took office, the National Park Service has lost 24% percent of its permanent workforce. According to the New York Times, over 90 national parks reported problems between April and July, stemming from staff cuts and a hiring freeze that affected roles ranging from cleaners to rangers and visitor center staff. The cuts undermined essential park services and maintenance during a time of increased visitation.

In June, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced plans to rescind a Clinton-era rule that prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest on nearly 59 million acres of the National Forest System. It followed a March executive order and a memo issued by Rollins in April, which laid the groundwork for a major increase in industrial logging across federal forests. Green groups warned that timber and mining activities would pollute air and drinking water and strip away essential habitats for wildlife such as California condors, grizzly bears and wolves of the Yellowstone area, native salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest, migratory songbirds of the Appalachian hardwoods.

Featured image: Daniel Torok via The White House/Flickr.

You might also like: Meet Trump’s Anti-Climate Cabinet