Trump Wields Executive Order to Dismantle State Climate Laws

 

In a dramatic move that intensifies his campaign against climate policy, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order late Tuesday aimed at halting the enforcement of a wide array of state climate laws. Declaring that these measures conflict with his administration’s energy priorities, Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement of State laws” that the White House argues are unconstitutional, unenforceable, or superseded by federal authority. States named specifically in the order include California, New York, and Vermont.

“These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy,” Trump declared in the order. “They should not stand.”

 

The executive order marks a sharp escalation in Trump’s ongoing assault on environmental regulations. It targets not only state cap-and-trade programs and permitting processes but also lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states and municipalities against fossil fuel companies. These legal actions aim to hold energy corporations accountable for the environmental and economic damage caused by climate change, from sea level rise to intensified wildfires.

 

Trump’s announcement coincided with a White House event focused on reviving the coal industry, where he stood flanked by coal miners and promised that the Department of Justice would challenge “every single unconstitutional state or legal regulation that’s putting our coal miners out of business.”

 

 

Despite the sweeping nature of the order, some legal experts question its potential impact. “Trump has no authority on his own to nullify state laws,” said Michael Gerrard, faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. He added that the effectiveness of Trump’s order would ultimately depend on the judiciary, particularly state judges overseeing the ongoing climate lawsuits.

 

Still, climate advocates remain on high alert. “If you’re asking me to evaluate on a scale of 1 to 10 how concerned I am — I’m at a 10,” said Justin Balik, vice president of states for Evergreen Action. “It’s another seemingly abstract legal maneuver with incredibly tangible, real world consequences if successful.”

 

Democratic governors were quick to push back. “The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority,” said New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in a joint statement. “We are a nation of states — and laws — and we will not be deterred. We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer.”

 

The executive order also threatens the viability of landmark policies such as California’s cap-and-trade system and similar programs in Washington and across the Northeast. The administration labeled these initiatives as attempts to “punish carbon use,” citing the economic burden they allegedly impose on businesses and energy projects through complex environmental reviews.

 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office responded, saying it was reviewing the order but remained committed “to using the full force of the law and tools of this office to address the climate crisis head-on and protect public health and welfare.”

 

The Trump administration’s action also follows private discussions with oil and gas executives, who reportedly voiced concerns about state climate efforts and litigation. According to a source cited by POLITICO’s E&E News, Trump appeared receptive to industry pleas, signaling a willingness to act on their behalf.

 

Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, praised Trump’s order. “Directing the Department of Justice to address this state overreach will help restore the rule of law and ensure activist-driven campaigns do not stand in the way of ensuring the nation has access to an affordable and reliable energy supply,” he said.

 

Whether Trump’s executive order proves enforceable or not, it sends a clear signal: his administration is prepared to fight state-led climate initiatives at every turn, potentially reshaping the battleground over environmental policy in the United States for years to come.

 

Based on a report by Politico  2025-04-11

 

 

He and his party believe firmly in states' rights, except when they don't.

15 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

He and his party believe firmly in states' rights, except when they don't.

 

Which makes perfect sense.  Some state laws only affect residents of the state.  But other state laws affect the rights and lives of residents of other states, including interstate commerce. 
 

20 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

He and his party believe firmly in states' rights, except when they don't.

Such is the nature of a federation. Sometimes the federal government needs to override individual states policies if it's seen to be in the national interest.

I would be embarrassed if I was American.
Voted for him once, ok a mistake, but twice is just stupidity.

6 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

I would be embarrassed if I was American.
Voted for him once, ok a mistake, but twice is just stupidity.

 

More liberal tears.

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics figures said the Consumer Price Index fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1 percent in March. That led to a 12-month inflation rate of 2.4 percent down from the February rate of 2.8 percent, according to CNBC.

 

The core inflation rate, which excludes food and energy prices, was at 2.8 percent, the lowest core inflation rate since March 2021. 

 

Winning bigly for Americans.

 

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

Trump Wields Executive Order to Dismantle State Climate Laws

 

In a dramatic move that intensifies his campaign against climate policy, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order late Tuesday aimed at halting the enforcement of a wide array of state climate laws. Declaring that these measures conflict with his administration’s energy priorities, Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement of State laws” that the White House argues are unconstitutional, unenforceable, or superseded by federal authority. States named specifically in the order include California, New York, and Vermont.

“These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy,” Trump declared in the order. “They should not stand.”

 

The executive order marks a sharp escalation in Trump’s ongoing assault on environmental regulations. It targets not only state cap-and-trade programs and permitting processes but also lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states and municipalities against fossil fuel companies. These legal actions aim to hold energy corporations accountable for the environmental and economic damage caused by climate change, from sea level rise to intensified wildfires.

 

Trump’s announcement coincided with a White House event focused on reviving the coal industry, where he stood flanked by coal miners and promised that the Department of Justice would challenge “every single unconstitutional state or legal regulation that’s putting our coal miners out of business.”

 

 

Despite the sweeping nature of the order, some legal experts question its potential impact. “Trump has no authority on his own to nullify state laws,” said Michael Gerrard, faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. He added that the effectiveness of Trump’s order would ultimately depend on the judiciary, particularly state judges overseeing the ongoing climate lawsuits.

 

Still, climate advocates remain on high alert. “If you’re asking me to evaluate on a scale of 1 to 10 how concerned I am — I’m at a 10,” said Justin Balik, vice president of states for Evergreen Action. “It’s another seemingly abstract legal maneuver with incredibly tangible, real world consequences if successful.”

 

Democratic governors were quick to push back. “The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority,” said New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in a joint statement. “We are a nation of states — and laws — and we will not be deterred. We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer.”

 

The executive order also threatens the viability of landmark policies such as California’s cap-and-trade system and similar programs in Washington and across the Northeast. The administration labeled these initiatives as attempts to “punish carbon use,” citing the economic burden they allegedly impose on businesses and energy projects through complex environmental reviews.

 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office responded, saying it was reviewing the order but remained committed “to using the full force of the law and tools of this office to address the climate crisis head-on and protect public health and welfare.”

 

The Trump administration’s action also follows private discussions with oil and gas executives, who reportedly voiced concerns about state climate efforts and litigation. According to a source cited by POLITICO’s E&E News, Trump appeared receptive to industry pleas, signaling a willingness to act on their behalf.

 

Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, praised Trump’s order. “Directing the Department of Justice to address this state overreach will help restore the rule of law and ensure activist-driven campaigns do not stand in the way of ensuring the nation has access to an affordable and reliable energy supply,” he said.

 

Whether Trump’s executive order proves enforceable or not, it sends a clear signal: his administration is prepared to fight state-led climate initiatives at every turn, potentially reshaping the battleground over environmental policy in the United States for years to come.

 

Based on a report by Politico  2025-04-11

 

 

Dementia combined with extremely low IQ . Are there no intellectual criteria to become President? Being a criminal qualified you already? 😳

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

More liberal tears.

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics figures said the Consumer Price Index fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1 percent in March. That led to a 12-month inflation rate of 2.4 percent down from the February rate of 2.8 percent, according to CNBC.

 

The core inflation rate, which excludes food and energy prices, was at 2.8 percent, the lowest core inflation rate since March 2021. 

 

Winning bigly for Americans.

 

Inflation goes down in recessions, nobody buys anything.

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

Dementia combined with extremely low IQ . Are there no intellectual criteria to become President? Being a criminal qualified you already? 😳

Add obesity and narcissism.

18 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Dementia combined with extremely low IQ . Are there no intellectual criteria to become President? Being a criminal qualified you already? 😳

 

Apparently not.  The "sharp-as-a-tack" Biden was allowed to stumble around Air Force One now and again, so, yes, I guess it's perfectly ok to suffer from dementia and have a low IQ while also being president (though, to be fair to all Democrat voters, this obvious truth was concealed  from them by the willing co-operation of the MSM in never mentioning it for four years).

16 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Apparently not.  The "sharp-as-a-tack" Biden was allowed to stumble around Air Force One now and again, so, yes, I guess it's perfectly ok to suffer from dementia and have a low IQ while also being president (though, to be fair to all Democrat voters, this obvious truth was concealed  from them by the willing co-operation of the MSM in never mentioning it for four years).

I'm not talking about Biden, did I?? You missed the point

40 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Add obesity and narcissism.

Sorry, my fault. Yes, you're right.

It disgust me think about millions of voters putting the 2 untamed apes ( little donnie diaper and his pitbull pet JD) in a house where Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived.....

Can't someone just steal his pens?

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

I would be embarrassed if I was American.
Voted for him once, ok a mistake, but twice is just stupidity.

Actually, quite the opposite.  I was embarrassed when Biden and the word salad lady were in office.

Good - it's junk science.

Good.

 

The Doomsday cult need to be exposed. 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Which makes perfect sense.  Some state laws only affect residents of the state.  But other state laws affect the rights and lives of residents of other states, including interstate commerce. 
 

Including interstate air/water pollution ... oops. Sorry but I lived in both the Delaware River and Ohio River ares where interstate pollution needed both the state and federal regulations ... but now we are free from those health protective pesky regulations inhibiting the free market!

2 hours ago, khunjeff said:

He and his party believe firmly in states' rights, except when they don't.

10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Trump said he would be dictator for just the first day.... this keeps dragging on and on with his "executive orders".

Republicans raised holy heck over Biden's exec orders... 60 in first 90 days. Trump just passed 100 and the content has been off the charts.

Shame on the Republican jellyfish Congress: no balls and no backbone. But as far as states setting pollution standards, already settled:

"Feb 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to place on hold a dispute over California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars even as President Donald Trump's administration considers policy shifts that touch upon pending litigation at the nation's highest judicial body.

The justices denied the administration's request to pause further action in the case, as well as two cases concerning which courts may hear challenges to EPA rules. The justices previously agreed to take up these cases but have not yet heard arguments in them." https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/09/court-reaffirms-californias-longstanding-right-to-fight-vehicle-pollution/

2 hours ago, khunjeff said:

He and his party believe firmly in states' rights, except when they don't.

Poor understanding of the law.  Please tell us whether state environmental laws can be overruled under Article 1 of the USC. Tell us how climate regulation should differ from other regulations affecting commerce, if at all?

 

Alternative: Just another spew of nonsense with no legal basis, indicia of Trump Hate Madness

9 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Shame on the Republican jellyfish Congress: no balls and no backbone. But as far as states setting pollution standards, already settled:

Really? The case has been decided?

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Poor understanding of the law.  Please tell us whether state environmental laws can be overruled under Article 1 of the USC. Tell us how climate regulation should differ from other regulations affecting commerce, if at all?

 

Alternative: Just another spew of nonsense with no legal basis, indicia of Trump Hate Madness

Climate change was always a con to make money off the gullible lefties in the first place.

All these rich folk flying around in their private jets and buying sea shore properties, while telling the rest of us not to fly, drive, heat our homes or have holidays.

43 minutes ago, kimothai said:

Actually, quite the opposite.  I was embarrassed when Biden and the word salad lady were in office.

Yes they were embarrassing also.

 

3 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

I would be embarrassed if I was American.
Voted for him once, ok a mistake, but twice is just stupidity.

 62.9 million people voted for Trump in 2016, 74.2 million in 2020, and 77.3 million in 2024. I doubt that  they are all stupid. A somewhat presumptuous statement on your part.

3 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Inflation goes down in recessions, nobody buys anything.

Not necessarily. If you have an effective monopoly, prices go up.

2 hours ago, kimothai said:

Actually, quite the opposite.  I was embarrassed when Biden and the word salad lady were in office.

Yeah i really hated having the worlds best economy.  I am sure all the maga  morons are thrilled to see their 401 ks tank, while their social security and medicare is being threatened along with staff cuts meaning less service longer lines at all govt agencies...all while they watch mr trump play golf and plan 92 million dollar parades to honor himself.  But don't forget to give the billionaires stock tips and tax cuts.

 

So tired of winning.

Insanity reigns again. Totally bonkers. 

Net zero and man made global warming is just a scam, Trump is right again

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

 62.9 million people voted for Trump in 2016, 74.2 million in 2020, and 77.3 million in 2024. I doubt that  they are all stupid. A somewhat presumptuous statement on your part.

Irrespective of whether they were really stupid I bet they feel stupid now that they can see the mess he is making!

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

 62.9 million people voted for Trump in 2016, 74.2 million in 2020, and 77.3 million in 2024. I doubt that  they are all stupid. A somewhat presumptuous statement on your part.

It certainly is looking that way.

It won’t end well. 
 

You also have to look at the opposition. An old woman whose only qualification was marrying Bill Clinton.

And a strange cat woman who couldn’t string a sentence together.

 

He couldn’t even beat a sleepy old guy with Alzheimer’s.