Court ruling against Greenpeace sends warning to protest groups nationwide
A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay $660 million to pipeline giant Energy Transfer, raising concerns that fossil fuel companies may increasingly use the courts to silence environmental protests.
In short:
- Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace over its role in the Dakota Access pipeline protests, and a jury found the organization liable for defamation and other claims.
- Legal experts say the verdict could deter future protest efforts by nonprofits and activists, especially as President Trump promotes fossil fuel expansion.
- Greenpeace plans to appeal, citing concerns about local industry ties and First Amendment protections.
Key quote:
“If companies can sue critics, advocates, and protesters into oblivion for their speech and the unlawful acts of third parties, then no one will feel safe protesting corporate malfeasance.”
— Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
Why this matters:
Over the past five years, as climate activists have stepped up opposition to oil and gas pipelines, petrochemical plants, and export terminals, more than two dozen states have passed laws enhancing penalties for interfering with “critical infrastructure.” Legal experts and civil liberties advocates say many of these laws were shaped — sometimes even written — by the fossil fuel industry itself. The result is a legal environment where nonviolent direct action can carry years-long prison sentences and staggering fines, even when no property damage or injury occurs.
Environmental groups warn that this shift threatens more than just individual demonstrators — it undermines the ability of communities to push back against projects that often pose health risks to local residents, particularly in low-income and Indigenous areas. As corporate lawsuits and state policies make it harder to organize, critics say these tactics erode basic democratic norms, suppress dissent, and shift power further away from the public and toward industry.
Read more:
Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda
EPA dismantles decades of work on environmental justice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is cutting staff and funding for environmental justice programs, shuttering its Office of Environmental Justice, and sidelining science-based tools and research.
In short:
- Former EPA official David Cash says the agency’s rollback of environmental justice programs will increase exposure to pollution, lead, and mold in low-income and minority communities.
- The EPA has removed a public mapping tool that helped target health-focused investments, like electric buses and lead pipe replacement, in areas with high asthma and toxic exposure.
- Eliminating the EPA’s science office could leave states without key research and data needed to protect public health and hold polluters accountable.
Key quote:
“It will mean more and more people exposed to lead, and kids exposed to lead, and therefore kids having education problems and attention deficit problems, all of those kinds of things that are related to high blood lead levels. At this point, it's completely unlawful, what EPA is doing.”
— David Cash, former EPA administrator for Region 1-New England
Why this matters:
Environmental justice programs have long served as a lifeline for communities where smokestacks, highways, and hazardous waste sites are often just a few blocks away from schools and homes. These initiatives — ranging from grants to monitor air quality to efforts that reduce exposure to lead and diesel exhaust — have helped address the health disparities that come with living near sources of industrial pollution. Many of the neighborhoods that benefit are predominantly low-income and home to people of color, where rates of asthma and other chronic illnesses outpace national averages.
Cutting these programs not only halts progress but threatens to reverse it. Federal support has played a key role in helping local governments and grassroots organizations track environmental risks, advocate for cleaner practices, and hold polluters accountable. Without it, already-overburdened communities face steeper challenges in protecting public health, especially as regulatory oversight becomes thinner. The rollback comes at a time when climate-driven events — extreme heat, wildfires, and floods — are amplifying the health impacts of pollution, often in the very places these programs were designed to protect.
Read more:
Trump administration stalls $20B in clean energy funding as legal battles mount, imperiling projects nationwide
A growing legal and political fight over $20 billion in frozen climate grants has stalled clean energy and housing projects across the U.S., leaving nonprofits and developers scrambling to salvage work aimed at reducing energy costs.
In short:
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump is trying to halt $20 billion in climate grants awarded during the Biden administration, citing unsupported allegations of fraud and mismanagement.
- A federal judge rejected EPA’s bid to cancel the grants, but the money remains frozen, forcing organizations to delay or abandon clean energy, efficiency, and housing initiatives.
- The uncertainty has scared off private capital, weakened nonprofit coalitions, and could slow or kill projects intended to benefit low- and middle-income communities.
Key quote:
“It’s actually really scary. A lot of developers could go belly-up over the situation.”
— Megan Lasch, president of Texas affordable housing developer O-SDA Industries
Why this matters:
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $20 billion initiative created under the Inflation Reduction Act, was billed as a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s climate strategy — one aimed at bringing clean energy investment to communities that have long been left behind. By offering low-cost financing for solar panels, heat pumps, and efficient housing in disadvantaged areas, the program was meant to unlock private capital for projects that reduce both emissions and utility bills. But with the fund now stalled under the new administration, many of those plans are in limbo, and the wait is hitting smaller towns and lower-income neighborhoods hardest.
Projects that were teed up with months of planning are now on hold, leaving community developers, local governments, and climate-focused nonprofits scrambling. Critics warn that the disruption could widen the gulf in clean energy access between wealthy and struggling areas, while also undermining national climate targets.
Read more: EPA cancels $20 billion in climate grants amid legal battle
A shift away from pollution enforcement under Trump administration
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will scale back enforcement of pollution violations, limit protections for low-income communities, and shift its mission toward lowering energy costs, according to a new agency memo.
In short:
- A March 12 memo states the EPA will no longer shut down energy operations unless there’s an “imminent threat,” and cannot consider if affected communities are poor or majority-minority.
- Several high-profile investigations launched under President Biden, including cases involving oil refineries and PFAS emissions, now face delays or abandonment.
- The agency will cut enforcement staff, reduce on-site inspections, and pull back from regulating coal ash and methane emissions.
Key quote:
“The memorandum is essentially a wink, wink to coal and oil interests that they can pollute with what may be close to impunity.”
— Ann E. Carlson, professor of environmental law at UCLA School of Law
Why this matters:
The recent weakening of environmental enforcement marks a significant shift in federal priorities, with potentially profound consequences for public health — particularly in low-income and historically marginalized communities. These are often the very neighborhoods situated near highways, chemical plants, and refineries where pollution is already a daily concern. Without consistent monitoring and legal oversight, emissions from industrial facilities can go unchecked, increasing the risk of chronic illnesses like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and even certain cancers. In some areas, birth defects have been linked to long-term exposure to toxic air and water pollutants.
This change is part of a larger rollback of environmental regulations that began in the previous Trump administration and has quickly resumed following his return to office. The EPA, once primarily focused on safeguarding human health and the environment, is being reoriented to weigh economic and energy interests more heavily. Critics argue this risks turning the agency’s mission on its head — placing industry profits ahead of community wellbeing, and inviting a future in which pollution becomes harder to track, harder to prevent, and easier to ignore.
Read more: EPA rollbacks could endanger public health, experts warn
Opinion: Trump allies aim to take U.S. energy policy back in time
Harold Hamm, a longtime oil executive, is using his influence with President Trump and key administration officials to sideline renewable energy and promote an oil-first agenda resminsicent of the 1990s, Russell Gold writes for The New York Times.
In short:
- Harold Hamm helped gut wind energy tax breaks in Oklahoma while protecting oil subsidies, then expanded his influence to national politics.
- He organized a $1 billion fundraising ask from oil executives to Trump, who has stacked his cabinet with Hamm’s longtime allies.
- Despite renewable energy’s growth and grid stability in states like Texas, the new administration frames fossil fuels as essential and renewables as unreliable.
Key quote:
“Everywhere wind and solar penetration have increased significantly, prices on the grid went up and stability of the grid went down.”
— Chris Wright, U.S. Energy Secretary
Why this matters:
America’s transition to clean energy is running into a powerful force: the fossil fuel industry’s grip on politics. While solar and wind are cheaper than ever, and emissions have dipped in recent years, oil and gas executives are wielding their influence in Washington and state capitols to secure new drilling permits, delay regulations, and protect profits. With President Trump back in office, allies of the fossil fuel sector are again steering energy policy, pushing for expanded production even as the world warms.
The industry's political clout carries steep consequences. For frontline communities — many of them low-income or majority Black, Latino, or Indigenous — the ongoing reliance on fossil fuels means continued exposure to air and water pollution from refineries, pipelines, and power plants. These neighborhoods often bear the health burdens of asthma, heart disease, and shortened lifespans. Meanwhile, climate impacts — from deadly heatwaves to billion-dollar disasters — are escalating, as the planet responds to every added ton of carbon.
Related:
- Trump accelerates fossil fuel expansion as Democrats push back
- Community activists plead to be heard through “closed doors” outside nation’s top energy conference
- Lives “devastated’ by petrochemical industry pollution in Texas: Report
Puerto Rico’s climate scientists lose federal support amid new Trump policies
As President Trump imposes restrictions on climate-related research, scientists in Puerto Rico warn that canceled grants and vanishing funding are halting critical studies on environmental threats in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions.
Víctor Rodríguez Velázquez reports for Centro de Periodismo Investigativo.
In short:
- Trump administration policies are cutting climate and health research funding across Puerto Rico, particularly affecting federal grants from NASA, NOAA, NIH, and USDA.
- Researchers report they are being pressured to omit terms like “climate change” and “diversity” from proposals to avoid rejection, which they say leads to censorship and self-censorship.
- At risk are studies on coastal erosion, renewable energy, heat impacts on schools, and the links between climate and disease, all crucial in a region increasingly affected by hurricanes and sea level rise.
Key quote:
“It’s a gag on innovation, integrity, and creativity in the scientific community.”
— Manuel Valdés Pizzini, director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Coastal Studies
Why this matters:
Puerto Rico sits on the frontlines of climate disruption, already battered by hurricanes, coastal erosion, and deadly heat. As hurricanes intensify and shorelines retreat, the island’s capacity to monitor and respond to environmental threats is being quietly dismantled. Budget cuts and political uncertainty have left universities and research institutions scrambling, with key studies halted and young scientists heading to the mainland or abandoning the field altogether.
The timing couldn’t be worse. Communities already reeling from years of recovery after Hurricanes Maria and Fiona are also facing soaring temperatures, a stressed power grid, and limited access to clean water. When funding for climate and health research dries up, so does the lifeline that connects vulnerable populations to early warnings and long-term solutions. The result is a dangerous knowledge gap — one that deepens inequity and leaves the island exposed to the accelerating chaos of a warming world.
Learn more: Data gaps in US territories threaten climate resilience
Paris tests public support for green streets by voting on car-free zones
Parisians voted Sunday on whether to close 500 streets to car traffic and add greenery in a symbolic test of how far residents will go to support climate policy changes.
In short:
- Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s plan would add five to eight pedestrianized, green streets in each of Paris’s 20 districts, aiming to reduce pollution and adapt to climate change.
- Critics say the vote lacks detail and may deepen urban-suburban divides by limiting car access for commuters and residents without clear plans or cost information.
- Hidalgo, who leaves office next year, has already cut car traffic by over 40% since 2011 through expanded bike lanes and reduced parking.
Key quote:
“With this vote, Parisians have the choice of whether or not to accelerate Paris’s adaptation to climate change, the fight against pollution, and the improvement of the living environment within 300 meters of their homes.”
— Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo
Why this matters:
Paris’s recent decision to sharply limit car traffic in its central districts marks a major shift in how modern cities are rethinking public space, mobility, and health. The move is designed to tackle some of the most pressing urban challenges: rising temperatures that bake asphalt-heavy streets, traffic congestion that chokes lungs and slows life, and noise that frays nerves. The new policy builds on years of smaller-scale car bans and pedestrian zones, and it places Paris among a growing number of global cities — from Bogotá to Milan — trying to reduce their dependence on private vehicles.
But even as the policy signals progress on climate and air quality, it raises thorny questions about equity. The benefits of quieter, greener, and cooler streets are often concentrated in wealthier, denser urban cores, while those living in outer neighborhoods — or in suburbs where public transit is spotty — may face longer commutes or limited access to newly transformed areas. In short, while the environmental case for reducing car traffic is clear, the social implications are still unfolding.
Related: Paris showcases a car-free future during the Olympics
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.”
New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
Op-ed: Why funding for the environmental justice movement must be anti-racist
We must prioritize minority-serving institutions, BIPOC-led organizations and researchers to lead environmental justice efforts.
Biden finalizes long-awaited hydrogen tax credits ahead of Trump presidency
Responses to the new rules have been mixed, and environmental advocates worry that Trump could undermine them.
Op-ed: Toxic prisons teach us that environmental justice needs abolition
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
LISTEN: Reflections on the first five years of the Agents of Change program
The leadership team talks about what they’ve learned — and what lies ahead.