In a dramatic shake-up, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving dozens of scientists from its research office to chemical review roles, prompting fears of weakened environmental protections.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that 130 scientists will be reassigned from the agency’s independent research arm to roles approving new chemicals, a long-standing priority of the chemical industry.
The move is part of a broader deregulatory agenda, including efforts to dismantle key climate protections, and comes with veiled threats that jobs may be cut if scientists don’t comply.
Critics, including lawmakers and scientists, warn this will politicize research, suppress independent science, and boost corporate influence in decisions that affect public health.
Key quote:
“This so-called ‘reorganization’ is a thinly veiled attempt to extinguish the agency’s world-renowned scientific expertise by shuffling scientists to process chemical reviews for industry.”
— Representative Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine
Why this matters:
The implications go far beyond the walls of the EPA. From hormone-disrupting plastics to “forever chemicals” in drinking water, the stuff we breathe, eat, and drink is already loaded with synthetic compounds. Gutting the EPA’s independence and burying its scientists in a flood of industry-backed chemical reviews risks letting even more toxic substances slip through the cracks.
Hawaii’s plan to sue fossil fuel companies over climate damages prompted the Trump administration to preemptively sue Hawaii and Michigan, seeking to block the anticipated lawsuits.
Hawaii announced it would sue fossil fuel companies to recover costs from climate impacts, including the 2023 Maui wildfires, while Michigan also prepared similar litigation.
The Trump administration responded by suing both states, citing a new executive order asserting that state lawsuits against the energy sector undermine national security and federal authority.
Legal experts described the federal government’s move to block lawsuits before their filing as “highly unusual” and unlikely to succeed procedurally.
Key quote:
“The climate crisis is here, and the costs of surviving it are rising every day. Hawaii taxpayers should not have to foot that bill.”
— Josh Green, governor of Hawaii
Why this matters:
As climate disasters mount, states and cities increasingly turn to the courts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the rising costs of wildfires, floods, and erosion. The Trump administration’s aggressive legal pushback represents a novel federal-state clash over who controls the narrative and legal remedies for climate change damages. Lawsuits like Hawaii’s argue that the public has borne the financial and human costs of climate change, while companies that profited from fossil fuels allegedly downplayed or concealed the risks. As more states consider "climate deception" lawsuits and climate superfund laws, the outcome of these legal battles could set national precedents.
A widespread blackout in Spain, Portugal, and parts of France has exposed the growing vulnerabilities of modern power grids as they adapt to climate change, cyber threats and the renewable energy transition.
Europe’s largest blackout in over 20 years disrupted Spain, Portugal, and parts of France, with experts warning that no grid can be fully immune to collapse.
While natural disasters and extreme weather events are major risks, human error, cyber-attacks, and the complexities of integrating renewable energy also threaten grid stability.
Spain’s blackout was triggered by a rapid, unexplained loss of power generation, raising questions about grid resilience as countries transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
Key quote:
“Despite today’s high standards of reliability, low-probability but high-impact blackout events can still happen.”
— Prof Jianzhong Wu, head of the school of engineering at Cardiff University
Why this matters:
As nations race to decarbonize their energy supplies and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, power grids face mounting challenges. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar offer cleaner alternatives but introduce variability and complexity to grid operations. Unlike traditional power plants, renewables lack the mechanical inertia that stabilizes grid frequency, making systems more vulnerable to sudden disruptions. Climate change intensifies these risks by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events that can damage infrastructure. The blackout across the Iberian Peninsula is a stark reminder that energy resilience requires more than just green technology — it demands robust, adaptive infrastructure capable of weathering both natural and human threats.
Bird populations across North America are plummeting, with three-quarters of species in decline even in their most stable habitats, according to a new study.
A comprehensive study found that 75% of North America’s bird species declined between 2007 and 2021, including many that were once abundant.
Habitat loss from farming, coastal development, climate change, and pesticide use are driving declines, even in previously safe areas.
While overall trends are bleak, some localized bird populations are stable or growing, offering insight for future conservation efforts.
Key quote:
“Those locations where species were once thriving, and where the environment and habitat was once really suitable for them, are now the places where they’re suffering the most.”
— Alison Johnston, ecological statistician, University of St. Andrews and lead researcher of the study
Why this matters:
Birds serve as vital indicators of environmental health. Their decline reflects the widespread degradation of ecosystems that also support human life. As habitats vanish under the pressures of agriculture, urban development, and climate change, the intricate balance sustaining both wildlife and people unravels. The rollback of environmental protections—such as those under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—further threatens species survival. The weakening health of bird populations often parallels human environmental challenges, like worsening air quality and the spread of contaminants. Understanding and addressing these complex, interconnected threats is essential to protecting both wildlife and the human communities that share their habitats.
Donald Trump’s administration has moved to dismantle 145 environmental protections in just 100 days, outpacing the entire first term’s rollbacks and targeting rules on pollution, fossil fuels, and public lands.
Since January 20, the Trump administration has initiated 145 actions to weaken or repeal environmental protections, surpassing the 110 rollbacks made during his first presidency.
Policies affected include clean air and water regulations, wildlife protections, and climate policies such as the Paris Agreement and limiting fossil fuel use, while new drilling and mining projects have been fast-tracked.
Legal experts warn that many rollbacks bypass proper rule-making procedures, leading to lawsuits that could invalidate several actions, although the administration continues to push its deregulatory agenda aggressively.
Key quote:
“What we’ve seen in this first 100 days is unprecedented – the deregulatory ambition of this administration is mind-blowing.”
— Michael Burger, expert in climate law at Columbia University
Why this matters:
Environmental regulations are the foundation of public health and ecological resilience in the United States. Protections for clean air and water, limits on toxic pollution, and policies addressing climate change safeguard millions of people from disease, natural disasters, and degraded living conditions. The rapid pace and scope of rollbacks threaten to undermine decades of bipartisan work to support economic growth while protecting the environment. Moreover, bypassing established legal procedures weakens democratic norms and may erode public trust in environmental governance.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump is cutting more than $2.4 billion in grants aimed at aiding disadvantaged communities, despite a court order to resume funding.
The EPA, led by Lee Zeldin, is terminating at least 384 grants, including all environmental and climate justice block grants created under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
The administration argues these programs constitute "favoritism" and has tied them to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives it seeks to eliminate, despite a judge’s order to lift the funding freeze.
The cuts affect a broad range of projects, including clean water access in low-income and tribal communities, air pollution monitoring, and climate resilience efforts, with legal challenges now advancing to the appellate courts.
Key quote:
"These are illegal terminations. They mentioned that these are no longer EPA priorities, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what these grants were meant to do."
— Sacoby Wilson, director of the Health, Environmental, and Economic Justice Lab at the University of Maryland
Why this matters:
Environmental justice grants fund projects like improving drinking water infrastructure, monitoring toxic air emissions, and reducing risks from hazardous substances — essential services in areas historically neglected by both public and private investment. Ending these grants could deepen environmental and health inequities, especially in communities already struggling with high rates of asthma, cancer, and waterborne diseases. Rural and tribal areas, in particular, stand to lose critical support for climate adaptation and pollution mitigation. The move also raises broader constitutional questions about the executive branch’s authority to override congressional appropriations, which could reshape federal funding practices for years to come.
Canada’s newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, has pledged to expand the nation’s energy production and fast-track extractive projects while promising to uphold Indigenous rights, drawing both optimism and concern from Indigenous leaders.
Prime Minister Mark Carney, a former United Nations climate envoy, has vowed to make Canada an “energy superpower” by boosting both fossil fuel and clean energy development, while also pledging to honor Indigenous sovereignty and increase funding for Indigenous communities.
Despite Carney’s climate advocacy past, he has already removed Canada’s carbon tax and promised to expedite resource extraction projects, raising concerns among climate advocates and Indigenous groups.
Carney faces political challenges, as his Liberal Party lacks a majority in Parliament, and he must balance competing pressures from the fossil fuel industry and environmentalists.
Key quote:
“So-called Canadian sovereignty shouldn’t come at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty, nor should it be an excuse to violate our inherent rights.”
— Indigenous Climate Action
Why this matters:
Canada sits atop some of the world’s largest fossil fuel reserves and vast renewable energy potential. How it navigates the tension between economic growth and environmental stewardship has global implications, especially as climate change accelerates. Extractive projects can provide jobs and revenue but often lead to deforestation, water contamination, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Indigenous communities frequently bear the brunt of these harms while fighting for their right to self-determination and environmental protection.
www.nytimes.com
