Trump EPA

Op-ed: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.

The rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes.

In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.


We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.

I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).

We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).

Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.

As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journalabout the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well.

The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.

Trump climate change

March for Science rally in Washington DC, April 22, 2017.

Credit: Susan Melkisethian/Flickr

To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.

Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.

In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.

Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.

In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.

There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.

What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?

As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days.

Read "Lessons for the Next Resistance."

Ornate Parliament Hill building and clock tower in Canada's capital city.

Mark Carney’s rise places Trump between two quiet climate champions

Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, both seasoned climate advocates, now flank President Trump, creating a North American dynamic where climate leadership persists even when it’s not a campaign focus.

Justin Worland reports for TIME.

Keep reading...Show less
A kitchen wall with cabinets and an oven
Credit: Ida/Pixabay

Energy Star program faces shutdown as EPA reorganizes under Trump administration

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate the Energy Star program and other climate initiatives as part of a major agency reorganization, according to internal documents and recordings.

Lisa Friedman and Rebecca F. Elliott report for The New York Times.

Keep reading...Show less
Two men holding rope and setting up a roof for solar panels.

Political shifts stall $8 billion in clean energy projects as U.S. renewables boom

The U.S. clean energy sector has grown dramatically, but policy uncertainty under President Trump has already led to the cancellation or downsizing of nearly $8 billion in renewable projects this year.

Ames Alexander reports for Floodlight.

Keep reading...Show less
Sign in front of electric vehicle chargers that says 'Electric Vehicle Only'.

Why some House Democrats helped block California’s 2035 gas car ban

Thirty-five House Democrats joined Republicans to overturn California’s plan to phase out gas-powered cars by 2035, citing concerns about affordability and heavy industry lobbying.

Lisa Friedman reports for The New York Times.

Keep reading...Show less
Mining excavator in a mine pit.

Trump administration accelerates Alabama coal expansion mostly for foreign steel markets

The Trump administration is expediting the approval of a major Alabama coal mine expansion despite environmental and safety concerns, with most of the coal destined for export to foreign steelmakers.

Lee Hedgepeth reports for Inside Climate News.

Keep reading...Show less
LNG storage tank with a red sky in the background.

Louisiana expands LNG exports as Trump fast-tracks new terminal permits

A new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal is moving forward in southwest Louisiana, adding to the state’s growing LNG footprint as federal and state officials push for more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Tristan Baurick reports for Grist.

Keep reading...Show less
Big Ben and Parliament building in the United Kingdom.

UK residents take government’s climate strategy to European human rights court

Two British men argue that the UK’s failure to protect them from climate-related harm violates their human rights and have escalated their case to Europe’s top human rights court.

Damien Gayle reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
From our Newsroom
Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro speaks with the state flag and American flag behind him.

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

silhouette of people holding hands by a lake at sunset

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

wildfire retardants being sprayed by plane

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.

Stay informed: sign up for The Daily Climate newsletter
Top news on climate impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered to your inbox week days.