A top federal emergency official has resigned after President Trump announced plans to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and shift disaster response responsibilities to states.
Jeremy Greenberg, who oversaw FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center, resigned following Trump’s announcement to wind down the agency by November.
President Trump said states should manage their own disaster responses and warned that federal funding would decrease, with aid potentially routed through the White House instead.
FEMA has lost about a quarter of its staff since the start of the Trump administration, leading to long delays in disaster declarations and growing concerns about the agency’s ability to function during an above-average hurricane season.
Key quote:
“I will not be complicit in the dismantling of this agency, and while I would implement change — even radical change — the current approach lacks a clear end state or plan, and has been done recklessly without regard to our current statutory or moral obligations to the American people.”
— MaryAnn Tierney, former deputy administrator of FEMA who left the agency last month
Why this matters:
A move to shutter FEMA or strip it of authority risks turning disaster recovery into a patchwork system where political favoritism could determine which communities receive help. The potential for delayed responses, increased human suffering, and avoidable loss of life looms large, particularly for vulnerable populations who depend on federal support when local systems fail. As extreme weather intensifies, so does the need for a coordinated, well-resourced national response system.
President Trump ordered a sweeping restructuring of the U.S. wildland firefighting system, transferring authority to a new centralized agency despite expert warnings about costs and heightened risks as fire season intensifies.
Trump signed an executive order to consolidate wildland firefighting operations under the Department of the Interior, shifting responsibilities away from the U.S. Forest Service, which currently manages most federal firefighters.
Fire experts, including former Forest Service chiefs, warned the plan could backfire by disrupting coordination and increasing the chance of severe wildfires during a dangerously hot and dry season.
The administration provided no cost estimates and omitted any mention of climate change, though wildfires are growing more intense as temperatures rise and forests decline.
Key quote:
Consolidation of firefighting work could ‘actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.’
— Former U.S. Forest Service chiefs in a letter to lawmakers
Why this matters:
The U.S. faces increasingly destructive wildfire seasons, fueled by rising temperatures, drought, and forest degradation from pests and disease. Centralizing firefighting command may aspire to increase efficiency, but experts fear the move will sow confusion at the worst possible time. Thousands of firefighting personnel could be reassigned just as wildfires are expected to worsen across the West, South, and even the Northeast. Already, more than nine million acres burned last year. Effective wildfire management requires coordinated efforts across agencies and localities. Breaking apart that infrastructure mid-crisis could delay response times and stretch thinning resources.
During a speech opposing California’s planned phaseout of gas-powered cars, President Trump declared he would not allow wind turbines to be built except in emergencies.
Trump described wind turbines as “garbage” and claimed they mar the natural landscape.
An executive order currently pauses new wind project approvals while the government reviews wind permitting; no timeline has been set for completing that assessment.
Key quote:
“We’re not going to approve windmills unless something happens that’s an emergency. I guess it could happen, but we’re not doing any of them.”
— Donald Trump
Why this matters:
Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing sources of renewable power in the United States, providing a crucial alternative to fossil fuels. Turbines produce no air or water pollution during operation, and their growth has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially in rural areas where they’re often sited. Blocking their development could stall progress on decarbonizing the electric grid, increase reliance on coal and gas, and worsen public health outcomes linked to air pollution. Beyond emissions, the policy shift could also affect thousands of jobs tied to the wind sector and disrupt state-level clean energy goals. With climate change accelerating and extreme weather events becoming more common, limiting renewable energy projects raises concerns about both environmental and energy resilience.
A record-breaking drought grips New Mexico, yet the governor’s recent executive order sidesteps naming climate change or placing limits on the oil and gas industry, which fuels both the crisis and the state’s budget.
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order citing wildfire risk and directing drought planning, but avoided formally declaring a state of emergency or acknowledging the role of climate change and fossil fuels.
New Mexico's oil and gas industry is the state's top emitter of greenhouse gases and a major source of funding for state programs, creating a political bind for regulatory efforts.
Despite strong methane rules on paper, no major oil and gas legislation has passed the New Mexico Legislature in recent years, and lobbying from the fossil fuel sector continues to block reform.
Key quote:
“There is very little appetite in policymaking that has any kind of regulatory effect on the oil and gas industry.”
— Lucas Herndon, energy policy director, ProgressNow New Mexico
Why this matters:
New Mexico sits at a crossroads of climate policy and fossil fuel dependence. Its warming, drying climate has intensified wildfires, drained rivers, and stressed forests to a point unseen in centuries. Yet oil and gas operations not only drive those climate trends but also fund a third of the state’s budget, from schools to firefighting. This dependence makes it politically perilous for lawmakers to enact meaningful industry regulation, even as scientific consensus links these emissions to worsening drought. Without structural reform, the state faces compounding environmental and public health risks — including degraded air quality, heat exposure, and an overstretched firefighting infrastructure. As the climate warms, extreme events like flash floods and megafires grow more likely, threatening both natural ecosystems and human settlements across the Southwest.
A year after catastrophic flooding in Vermont, small towns like Barre are grappling with the economic strain of federal home buyouts that aim to reduce future flood risk but threaten their financial future.
Barre, Vermont, saw two major floods in July 2023 and 2024, prompting federal offers to buy flood-prone homes. But local officials limited buyouts to preserve the city’s tax base and land needed for affordable housing.
Residents like Shayd and Laurie Pecor, denied a federal buyout, now face costly upgrades and reduced property values, leaving them stuck in flood-damaged homes they want to leave.
The town of Plainfield accepted dozens of buyouts, sacrificing tax revenue to prioritize residents’ safety, while volunteers plan new housing on higher ground — though funding remains uncertain.
Key quote:
“We feel trapped. We would love to sell our house and move somewhere on a hill where you don’t have to worry about getting wet. But it’s going to be pretty much impossible.”
— Shayd Pecor, Barre resident
Why this matters:
As climate change intensifies, floods are hitting communities with increasing frequency and severity. Federal buyouts offer a lifeline to homeowners by allowing them to escape high-risk areas, but they also shrink the tax base and disrupt already fragile economies. In places like Barre, rejecting buyouts can leave residents stranded in damaged homes, while accepting them risks hollowing out entire neighborhoods. This dilemma underscores the unequal burden small, rural towns face when confronting climate resilience, where adaptation can come at the cost of community survival. As the nation spends billions on disaster recovery, the trade-offs between managed retreat and local economic viability are becoming more urgent.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion asserting that presidents may abolish or reduce national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act, potentially triggering U.S. Supreme Court review.
The OLC overruled a 1938 directive, arguing the Antiquities Act empowers the president to rescind designations “never were or no longer are deserving of the Act’s protections.”
The White House is vetting six Democratic-era monuments — including Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante and Chuckwalla — for possible rollback to allow mineral extraction.
Multiple tribes, environmental groups, and states have sued over President Trump’s 2017 reductions and Biden’s 2021 restorations, with challenges still active in lower courts.
Key quote:
“It’s quite obvious this opinion was done to try and justify something they plan to do going forward.”
— Mark Squillace, Raphael J. Moses professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado Law School
Why this matters:
Protected public lands serve as vital reservoirs for biodiversity, clean water, and carbon storage, contributing to both ecosystem resilience and human well-being. Shrinking monument boundaries can open sensitive habitats to mining, drilling, and grazing, degrading watersheds that supply drinking water and disrupting wildlife corridors that buffer against disease and pollution. For Indigenous communities, these landscapes hold ancestral sites and ecological knowledge that support cultural identity and health. As climate change intensifies, preserving large, connected natural areas is essential not only for conservation but also for the environmental services — like clean air and flood mitigation — that sustain public health and economic stability.
District officials quietly dismantled a protected bike lane in Northwest Washington, prompting backlash from cycling advocates and raising concerns that the city may be retreating from efforts to build safer infrastructure for cyclists.
D.C. transportation officials removed a newly installed protected bike lane on Arizona Avenue NW after residents complained about the look of its plastic posts and concrete barriers. The project took over two years to plan and install.
The District plans to replace the protected lane with painted bike lanes on both sides of the street, despite studies and federal guidelines recommending physical separation on high-traffic roads.
Advocates warn that D.C.'s decision aligns with a national trend of scaling back cycling infrastructure, as seen in states like Texas and California and echoed in recent statements by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
Key quote:
“We spent 18 months of our lives designing a protected bike lane because we didn’t think there was any other option. They are sacrificing safety for aesthetics.”
Removing physical protection from bike lanes reduces safety for cyclists, especially on busy roads like Arizona Avenue. Studies show that separated lanes significantly reduce crashes and encourage more people to bike, particularly children, older adults, and inexperienced riders. Without barriers, cars often encroach into bike lanes, turning them into unsafe shoulder zones. Nationally, similar rollbacks — fueled by complaints over aesthetics or traffic inconvenience — risk stalling progress on sustainable urban transport. At a time when cities are promoting climate goals, walkability, and alternatives to car travel, dismantling existing infrastructure could undermine public health and safety. If this trend continues, fewer people may feel safe biking, and communities may lose momentum toward more livable, climate-resilient streets.
