How Trump’s 2025 Agenda is Destroying the Earth and U.S. Businesses
Why Every American Must Fight Back Against His Environmental Rollbacks Before They Poison Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future
Introduction
As a lawyer and business executive who cares deeply about the environment, I have never been more alarmed than I am in 2025. In just a few short months, President Donald Trump’s administration has unleashed a barrage of executive orders and regulatory rollbacks that threaten not only our planet’s health, but also the long-term vitality of our economy.
This isn’t hyperbole or partisan chatter – it’s a stark reality that every industry leader and everyday citizen should take to heart. We’re watching decades of hard-won environmental progress being dismantled before our eyes, and the consequences will ripple across clean energy, technology, agriculture, transportation, real estate – essentially every sector that defines American prosperity.
The Trump administration’s stated goal is “energy dominance” and “economic freedom.” In practice, this has meant prioritizing fossil fuel interests above all else, no matter the cost to public health or future competitiveness. The President claims these moves will lower costs and free us from red tape. But as someone who has spent a career building businesses, I recognize short-sighted thinking when I see it. These policies are a recipe for long-term disaster: choking our air and water, worsening the climate crisis, and ceding America’s global leadership in the industries of tomorrow.
Below, I break down the key environmental executive actions Trump has taken so far in 2025, alongside his justifications and the real-world impacts. Then I’ll look at what he’s promising (or threatening) to do next.
Consider this a call to arms for all of us – executives, workers, parents, community members – who refuse to let our country slide backwards. It’s urgent, but we are not powerless. For each of these destructive moves, there are ways to fight back and better alternatives that we must demand.
Trump’s 2025 Executive Actions: Undoing Progress on All Fronts
Trump wasted no time once back in the Oval Office. On Day One, he signed a flurry of executive orders rolling back environmental protections and climate initiatives. Each was couched in upbeat slogans about jobs or freedom, but don’t be fooled: taken together, these actions set us on a dangerous course. Here are the major orders and policy changes already underway in 2025 – and why they’re so harmful:
Declaring a National Energy “Emergency”
Overview: President Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, insisting that America’s energy supply is “far too inadequate” and that drastic measures are needed to boost oil, gas, and coal production. In this emergency declaration, he directed federal agencies to expedite permits for fossil fuel projects and even suggested using special powers to bypass environmental laws in the name of energy security.
Trump’s Justification: Trump claims this “emergency” will drive down fuel prices and protect national security by making the U.S. less reliant on foreign oil. In his words, regulations and “red tape” have strangled energy production, so sweeping action is required to “keep the lights on” and lower costs for American families.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: This supposed crisis is a manufactured excuse to let polluters run wild. The facts don’t lie: the United States was already the world’s top oil and gas producer before this order.
There is no genuine shortage – in reality, Trump’s move is about giving oil companies free rein to drill and burn without oversight. By invoking an “emergency,” he hopes to skirt cornerstone protections like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, fast-tracking pipelines and drilling projects that could never pass environmental muster otherwise. The result? More oil spills in our oceans and rivers, more methane leaking into the air, and a heavy blow to our climate. All this pollution directly endangers public health – think asthma, heart and lung disease, and toxic contamination of water supplies.
From a business perspective, calling fossil fuel expansion an emergency completely misses where the world is headed. Global markets are pivoting to clean energy and sustainable practices. Declaring a fake crisis to double down on last century’s energy sources signals to investors that the U.S. is clinging to the past.
It creates uncertainty too – if environmental laws can be swept aside on a whim, companies investing in clean technology or even traditional energy don’t know what rules they’ll be playing by tomorrow. That instability is poison for long-term competitiveness. Instead of leading the charge into renewables (where American innovation could thrive), we’re stuck subsidizing a polluting status quo.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: Just a few years ago, the world looked to America for climate leadership – we were cutting emissions, innovating in clean tech, and rallying international cooperation. Trump’s “energy emergency” flips that on its head. It tells the world that the U.S. is abandoning the fight against climate change and prioritizing short-term oil profits over global stability. This retreat creates a leadership vacuum that China, the EU, and others are eager to fill with their clean energy industries. We risk becoming a follower in the most important economic shift of our era.
How to Fight Back:
- Legislative Pushback: Congress has the power to terminate a president’s national emergency declaration. Citizens should pressure their representatives to introduce a resolution cancelling this bogus “energy emergency.” Even if vetoed, it sends a strong message and can rally public scrutiny. This can happen if Dems take back Congress in 2026.
- Courts and Oversight: Expect legal challenges – environmental organizations and state attorneys general can sue if agencies try to ignore laws under cover of this emergency. Supporting these lawsuits (through donations or public support) is critical. We should also demand rigorous congressional oversight: hearings to expose that U.S. energy supply was stable and that this emergency is a pretext for deregulation.
- Alternative Solutions: We do face genuine energy challenges – but they’re about transitioning to cleaner, more resilient systems, not pumping more oil. We should urge leaders to declare a climate emergency instead, channeling resources into renewable energy, grid upgrades, and efficiency. The best “energy security” comes from diversifying our sources (solar, wind, geothermal) and using energy smarter, not pretending oil is the only answer.
- Restore What Worked: Prior administrations didn’t strangle energy; they guided it toward sustainability. President Obama boosted vehicle efficiency standards and invested in renewables, which helped curb oil demand. President Biden’s policies (like tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during shortages and accelerating clean energy in the Infrastructure Law) showed that you can lower costs without gutting environmental laws. Those approaches – balancing supply in crises but focusing on long-term clean energy growth – need to be restored and doubled down, not thrown out.
“Unleashing American Energy” – Deregulation on Steroids
Overview: Trump signed an executive order officially titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which is essentially a directive for every agency to tear up any rule that fossil fuel companies don’t like. It orders a review of all regulations related to energy, with instructions to suspend, weaken, or repeal anything that could be deemed a “burden” on oil, gas, and coal development.
This sweeping order also revoked dozens of President Biden’s climate and clean energy initiatives – from emissions standards to conservation orders – and put a freeze on federal agencies disbursing funds for clean energy projects under laws like the Inflation Reduction Act. Incredibly, the order’s definition of “energy resources” pointedly excluded solar and wind power, as if clean energy isn’t part of America’s energy future.
Trump’s Justification: The rationale here is Trump’s familiar refrain of cutting “job-killing regulations.” He argues that by scrapping environmental rules, we’ll unleash economic growth, create jobs in mining and drilling, and achieve “energy dominance.” He also claims pausing clean energy spending will protect taxpayer money from being wasted on “green boondoggles” and keep energy prices low.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: This order is a blunt instrument that treats vital safeguards as annoyances. In reality, those “burdensome” regulations are protections that keep our air and water clean, our workers safe, and our climate stable. By directing agencies to prioritize fossil fuel expansion at all costs, the administration is inviting more pollution – more mercury and smog from coal plants, more cancer-causing chemicals from oil refineries, more carbon pouring into the atmosphere. Public health will pay the price: communities downwind of power plants or near refineries will face higher risks of asthma, cancers, and other diseases as pollution controls are rolled back.
Critically, halting the rollout of clean energy funds and projects is economically self-sabotaging. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and bipartisan infrastructure law had catalyzed a boom in clean energy industries – from electric vehicle manufacturing in the Midwest, to solar panel factories in the South, to battery and microchip plants nationwide. By “pausing” these investments, Trump is slamming the brakes on one of the fastest-growing job sectors in the country.
Private companies that had ramped up hiring and production expecting those federal incentives are now left in the lurch. This creates chaos in the market: imagine planning a multi-billion-dollar EV battery factory only to have the rug pulled out by a sudden freeze in support. That uncertainty and whiplash will discourage future business investments in America, as companies decide it’s safer to expand in Europe or Asia where policies are more predictable and pro-clean-tech.
Another shocking target of this order is the emerging electric vehicle sector. Trump talks about ending the “EV mandate” – essentially signaling attempts to roll back fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions standards that encourage automakers to build EVs and hybrids. The irony is that U.S. automakers themselves have invested heavily in electric models, recognizing that the world market (and many U.S. states) are going electric. By undermining national EV standards and even floating the idea of ending consumer EV tax credits, the administration is undercutting American car companies in the race to dominate the next generation of vehicles. It’s a gift to foreign competitors (China’s EV industry, for one) and a blow to our own manufacturing workers who were poised to lead in EV production.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: “Unleashing American Energy” in Trump’s terms means forsaking leadership in the energy technologies of the future. While other countries forge ahead with innovations in solar, wind, energy storage, and clean cars, this order steers America back into a fossil-fuel dead end. We risk losing our edge in advanced batteries, solar tech, and energy efficiency solutions – all areas where U.S. research and entrepreneurship have been strong.
Moreover, by disengaging on clean energy, the U.S. will have less influence in international energy markets. We’re effectively telling the world that we’re not interested in being the supplier of cutting-edge climate solutions – we’ll just be over here selling oil and coal until they run out. That’s a recipe for irrelevance as global demand shifts. And don’t forget, climate change is a global problem; abdicating our responsibility means forfeiting our moral authority and diplomatic leverage in all sorts of negotiations.
How to Fight Back:
- Legal Challenges to Protect Regulations: Each regulation targeted for removal has its own legal process. Public interest groups and some state governments are already gearing up to challenge arbitrary rollbacks – especially if agencies ignore scientific evidence or cut the public out of the rulemaking process. We should support these efforts. For example, if the EPA tries to scrap the limits on methane leaks or tailpipe emissions without due justification, lawsuits can and should be filed.
- State and Corporate Leadership: In the absence of federal leadership, states and responsible companies must lead. States like California and New York are likely to enforce their own strict environmental standards regardless of Trump’s actions. Major corporations – from automakers to tech giants – have made climate commitments and should stick to their plans to cut emissions and invest in clean energy. We as consumers and investors can hold them to it. If the federal government won’t fund green projects, state green banks and private capital can step up to keep momentum.
- Highlight Economic Losses: We need to loudly point out every time jobs and investments are lost due to this agenda. Did a solar company cancel an American factory? Was a wind farm project shelved? Those stories must be told, so that the public and even Congress members see that deregulation isn’t delivering promised jobs – it’s actually costing them. Building the economic case puts pressure on the administration to justify itself.
- Restore and Strengthen: Biden’s administration had restored many safeguards that Trump’s first term tore down – including methane pollution rules, stricter tailpipe standards, and enforcement of environmental justice in permitting. All of that is once again on the chopping block. We should call for not just bringing these protections back in the future, but strengthening them through legislation where possible so they can’t be so easily discarded. For instance, Congress could codify certain clean air and water standards into law, locking in protections that no president can undo with a pen.
Abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement (Again)
Overview: In a move that alarmed allies worldwide, Trump signed an order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time. This directive instructs the State Department to formally pull out of all accords under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – essentially washing our hands of international climate cooperation. It also cancels U.S. contributions to global climate finance efforts, such as the Green Climate Fund, and renounces any emissions-reduction pledges made previously. The administration’s message is clear: global warming will not be a concern for America’s foreign policy or international engagement.
Trump’s Justification: Trump argues that the Paris Agreement is a bad deal that “unfairly” burdens the United States while letting countries like China off the hook. He claims that staying in Paris would cripple the U.S. economy with regulations and that withdrawing puts “America first” by avoiding international constraints. In his view, environmental treaties are globalist intrusions on U.S. sovereignty and prosperity.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: Walking away from Paris is a profound setback for the global fight against climate change – and it hurts Americans too. Climate change doesn’t respect borders; by abandoning our commitments, we’re effectively saying we don’t care if the world burns, as long as we think we save a buck today. This undermines the immense progress made under Presidents Obama and Biden, who had led the charge in rallying nations to curb emissions.
The Paris Agreement isn’t perfect, but it’s the only worldwide framework we have to address a threat that affects everyone. When the second-largest emitter (the U.S.) refuses to participate, it gives other countries an excuse to slack off on their own commitments, leading to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and more severe climate impacts.
For the environment, the consequences will be dire: higher global emissions mean more extreme weather events – stronger hurricanes battering our coasts, deeper droughts hitting our farms, more destructive wildfires across our forests. Americans will feel those impacts in our communities and wallets.
Public health will suffer as heatwaves intensify and diseases spread in a warming world. And economically, climate damage will strain every industry, from agriculture to insurance to real estate (think of coastal property values plummeting due to sea-level rise that we fail to slow).
Abdicating our responsibility also means forfeiting the economic opportunities embedded in climate action. Paris isn’t just about cutting emissions; it’s about transitioning to a clean economy. By stepping back, the U.S. could miss out on the massive global demand for clean technology and climate solutions. That demand will be met – if not by American companies, then by others. Europe, for instance, is moving full steam ahead on green tech and will happily take the market share we give up.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: Internationally, this decision is a gift to our rivals and a blow to our reputation. Under previous administrations, the U.S. was seen as an indispensable leader in solving global crises – whether health, security, or climate. Now we look unreliable and self-serving. When America shrugs at climate change, countries like China can paint themselves as more responsible global citizens by contrast (even if their own actions are mixed).
We also lose leverage: why should other nations listen to us on any issue – trade, human rights, security – when we’ve proven we won’t cooperate on a fundamental planetary challenge? Moreover, by not engaging in the international process, we give up influence over how the rules of the future low-carbon global economy are written. It’s like skipping all the meetings where your competitors set the standards your businesses will eventually have to follow.
How to Fight Back:
- “We Are Still In” – Local and State Action: As happened the last time Trump quit Paris, states, cities, and businesses can band together to uphold the agreement’s goals on their own. Already, many U.S. states have set emissions targets consistent with Paris. We need more of that. Governors and mayors should openly commit to reducing emissions in line with the U.S. pledge (or even more aggressively, given federal backtracking). This not only reduces emissions but sends a message globally that most Americans — and the economic centers of our country — remain committed to climate action.
- Diplomacy by Others: Former Secretary of State John Kerry (who spearheaded our return to Paris under Biden) often spoke of “American absence” being filled by someone else. If our federal government won’t engage, then prominent Americans – governors, former officials, CEOs, and civil society leaders – should attend international climate summits in an unofficial capacity to maintain relationships and knowledge sharing. It’s not the same as official participation, but it can soften the blow until the U.S. has leadership that will rejoin.
- Economic Measures: Ironically, by leaving Paris, U.S. industries might face new costs – for example, the EU is implementing a carbon border tax on imports from countries that aren’t cutting carbon. American companies and trade groups should lobby against punitive measures by urging the administration to re-engage; if not out of environmental concern, then at least to protect American exporters. We can use the threat of lost business to push for sanity.
- Restore and Improve: The earliest chance for re-entry into Paris would be with a new administration in the future. We must make climate a top issue in every election until then. And when the U.S. does rejoin, we should aim to not just meet our old commitments but exceed them — making up for lost time. Under Obama, the U.S. pledged significant emissions cuts by 2025 and funding to help poorer nations adapt; Biden increased ambitions with aims for 2030. These were on track thanks to laws like the IRA. All that should be restored and accelerated. Rejoining quickly and visibly will help restore trust, but it will take a concerted effort to rebuild our credibility.
Pillaging Alaska’s Wilderness for Profit
Overview: Another early executive order, cheerfully titled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” greenlights aggressive resource extraction across Alaska’s most fragile wild places. Trump directed federal agencies to open up federal lands in Alaska to new oil drilling, natural gas development, coal mining, logging, and mining for minerals. This includes restarting lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (a pristine Arctic ecosystem previously off-limits), expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and fast-tracking permits for a massive proposed pipeline and LNG export terminal on the North Slope.
The order also calls for logging to resume in the Tongass National Forest (one of the world’s largest intact temperate rainforests), and even seeks to push through controversial road projects like the long-disputed road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Ambler Road through Brooks Range wilderness. In short, it’s a wish list for extractive industries to have their way with Alaska’s environment.
Trump’s Justification: Trump justifies this in the name of “job creation” and “energy independence.” He paints Alaska as an underutilized treasure trove that, if fully tapped, could boost the economy and make America an energy exporter powerhouse. He has also framed it as correcting federal overreach, saying Alaskans and the state’s economy have been held back by D.C. “environmental radicals” and that his policy will empower local communities with development and infrastructure.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: The environments targeted in Alaska are some of the most ecologically and culturally significant on the planet. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge threatens calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd (vital to the Gwich’in Indigenous people’s subsistence lifestyle), denning areas for polar bears (already endangered by climate change), and a fragile tundra ecosystem that, once damaged, may never recover. The previous protections were there for good reason – once you put roads, pipelines, and oil rigs into this untouched wilderness, the scars and spills will last for generations.
Likewise, pushing new oil and gas extraction in the National Petroleum Reserve and elsewhere dumps more carbon into the atmosphere at the exact time we need to be cutting emissions. It’s climate hypocrisy of the highest order: we can’t claim to address energy security while worsening the climate crisis that ultimately undermines global security. The world is trending away from new long-term oil projects; by the time oil from these areas comes to market, we risk creating stranded assets – expensive projects that no one needs anymore if global demand falls, leaving only the environmental damage behind without even economic gain.
Logging the Tongass forest and building roads through refuges pose huge environmental harms too. The Tongass is often called “America’s climate forest” because its old-growth trees store massive amounts of carbon and support salmon fisheries and tourism. Clear-cutting it for short-term timber sales would release carbon, destroy wildlife habitat (for bears, eagles, and more), and hurt the region’s fishing industry that relies on healthy streams. The road projects (Izembek and Ambler) would cut through protected lands that have been fought over in courts for decades – signaling that sacred sites and wildlife corridors are now open season for development.
From a public health standpoint, increased mining and drilling can introduce pollution – mercury from mining into rivers, air pollution from oil operations – that impact local communities (often Alaska Native villages). Furthermore, these projects often bring a boom-bust economy that leaves communities with damaged land and water but little long-term prosperity.
Long-Term Business Impact: It’s true that Alaska’s oil and minerals have value, but betting our energy strategy on them now is anachronistic. Renewable energy and battery storage are where the world is headed; yet this policy doubles down on extracting more fossil fuels at great cost.
Imagine if we instead invested in making Alaska a leader in something like offshore wind or geothermal (resources it also has in abundance) – that would create jobs without sacrificing its natural heritage. By destroying wilderness, we also lose economic opportunities in sustainable industries: outdoor recreation and tourism in Alaska are huge sectors that rely on pristine nature. No one wants to visit oil fields or clear-cut forests; they come for the unspoiled grandeur. Harming that reputation could cost more jobs and income over time than the extractive jobs created.
For industries across America, this approach sends a chilling signal: environmental values, which many companies and consumers now prioritize, will be disregarded. Companies committed to sustainability may shy away from investing in a country that so blatantly trashes conservation.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: America used to set aside lands like Yellowstone and Yosemite and be applauded for it – we pioneered the idea of national parks and wildlife refuges. That legacy of stewardship gave us moral clout to encourage other countries to protect rainforests or coral reefs. If we can’t even protect our own Arctic Refuge or our largest national forest, our words to the world carry less weight.
This Alaska plundering plan broadcasts that the U.S. cares more about squeezing a few more barrels of oil and board-feet of lumber out of nature than preserving it for future generations. It undercuts global initiatives to conserve biodiversity (where the U.S., under prior administrations, was starting to lead by example). Essentially, it says: do as we say, not as we do – which never sits well in international diplomacy.
How to Fight Back:
- Legal Defense of Protected Lands: Many of these Alaska projects will be tied up in court, as they have been for years. We should support the Indigenous groups and environmental coalitions suing to stop drilling in the Arctic Refuge and roads through wilderness. Court injunctions can delay or halt projects if agencies violated laws in rushing them. Donating to legal defense funds and amplifying their messages will help.
- Corporate and Financial Pressure: Notably, during Trump’s last attempt to auction Arctic Refuge drilling leases, virtually every major bank in the U.S. (and many abroad) refused to finance Arctic oil projects after public pressure. We need to keep that pressure on any financial institutions or oil companies tempted to explore there. If no one bankrolls the drilling, it won’t happen. The same goes for Tongass logging – major retailers and wood product buyers can be urged to boycott timber from old-growth rainforests.
- Congressional Action: Ultimately, permanent protection for places like the Arctic Refuge needs to be enshrined by Congress. There have been bills in the past to designate it as wilderness (which would forever prohibit drilling). We must revive and support such legislation, rallying bipartisan support by stressing the unique natural and cultural value of these lands. As for Tongass, Congress could restore roadless area protections by law or fund economic development in Southeast Alaska that doesn’t rely on logging. When lawmakers hear from enough constituents that these wild places matter, it can counterbalance the lobbying from extractive industries.
- Local & Global Outcry: Public opinion matters, even to this administration. The more noise we make – protests, op-eds, shareholder resolutions within oil companies, pressure from Alaska Natives and conservationists – the harder it becomes for the administration to justify its actions. Internationally, highlighting that the U.S. is violating environmental norms can create diplomatic pushback too. Other nations or global NGOs calling out the destruction of globally significant ecosystems can shame decision-makers and embolden domestic opposition.
- Restore and Improve Protections: President Obama had put much of the Arctic Ocean off-limits to drilling and saw no leases in the Refuge; President Biden canceled drilling leases and protected forest land in Tongass. These protections must be reinstated by a future administration, and we should aim to make them stronger. That could mean permanent wilderness status for the Refuge and legal safeguards for roadless national forests. We’ve learned that executive orders alone are too fragile. Our goal should be to lock in protection through law and robust policy so no future president can so easily sacrifice these treasures.
Sabotaging Clean Energy Development (Especially Wind Power)
Overview: Trump has taken direct aim at renewable energy, especially wind power. One executive action “temporarily” withdraws all federal offshore areas from new wind energy leasing and pauses ongoing wind energy projects pending a “review.” This means that plans to build offshore wind farms – which were poised to expand rapidly along the East Coast and beyond – are put on ice.
The order also casts doubt on large onshore wind projects, singling out a major wind farm proposal in the West for additional scrutiny. Ostensibly, the administration says it wants to investigate potential impacts on marine life, birds, and even issues like “wind patterns” and energy costs. In the meantime, agencies have been told not to issue permits or loans for any wind or possibly other renewable projects until further notice.
Beyond wind, the anti-renewable bent shows up elsewhere: by excluding solar and wind from the definition of energy in key policies, the administration is clearly trying to sideline these technologies. There’s a general chill over federal support for renewable energy – we’ve heard rhetoric attacking solar farms for “taking up too much land” and even murmurs about eliminating federal procurement of clean power. But the clearest action so far is the clampdown on wind energy.
Trump’s Justification: Trump has never hidden his disdain for wind turbines (remember his claims that wind turbine noise causes cancer and that turbines are “bird cemeteries”). The official justification in the executive order is concern for wildlife – birds struck by turbine blades, whales possibly affected by offshore wind development – and a claim that wind isn’t as efficient or reliable. The administration casts this pause as a responsible step to prevent “radical” green projects from raising energy costs or harming natural resources, until studies can be done.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: Halting wind energy development directly undermines one of the most important tools we have to fight climate change. Every turbine not built means more megawatts of power that will have to come from fossil fuels – meaning more coal and gas burned, more carbon and pollution in our air.
Offshore wind in particular was on the cusp of a major boom, with huge investments lined up that promised to deliver clean electricity to millions of homes and create tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing and installation. Now, those projects are in limbo. Companies that won leases and hired workers are stuck waiting, incurring costs with no timeline, which might force them to shift investments overseas or cancel projects. It’s a gut-punch to a burgeoning industry that the U.S. was finally starting to catch up in (Europe has been miles ahead on offshore wind for decades).
The wildlife argument Trump makes is deeply disingenuous. Yes, wind turbines can harm birds and require responsible siting and mitigation – but fossil fuel pollution and climate change are far greater threats to wildlife (and people). Oil spills have devastated bird populations; rising ocean temperatures from climate change are killing marine life at a disturbing rate. To use conservation as a pretext to halt wind energy is cynical and ignores the big picture.
Solutions exist to minimize windfarm impacts (like technology to detect and deter birds, careful placement away from key habitats, seasonal curbs during migrations, etc.). These issues were being addressed through environmental reviews that Trump now portrays as inadequate – even as he concurrently tries to weaken environmental reviews for oil drilling. It’s a double standard: relax rules for oil companies, tighten them for wind developers.
Public health and consumer impact are also at stake. Transitioning to renewables isn’t just an environmental nicety; it promises more stable energy prices and cleaner air. Wind and solar have zero fuel cost – once turbines and panels are up, they produce electricity without monthly fuel bills, which shields consumers from the volatility of oil and gas markets. By stalling wind projects, Trump’s policy ensures we remain more dependent on gas and coal plants that have been driving up utility bills and pumping out pollution. So Americans could face higher energy costs in the long run and continued health hazards from air pollution that clean wind power would have helped reduce.
Business and Competitiveness: The renewable energy sector has been a bright spot for innovation and economic growth. By sabotaging it, we’re giving away a strategic industry. Think about the supply chain: turbines, blades, towers, cabling, maintenance vessels – a whole ecosystem of jobs and factories can flourish around offshore wind. The same goes for large-scale onshore wind and solar. Other countries see this and are racing to dominate those supply chains. If the U.S. falters now, we might end up importing most of the technology later (likely from Europe or Asia) instead of building it here. We’ve already seen this happen in the past with solar panel manufacturing largely moving to China when U.S. policy support lagged. We don’t want history to repeat itself with wind.
Moreover, many rural areas and farming communities have benefited from wind turbines on their land, earning lease payments that provide steady income. By stopping wind development, those communities lose out economically too. In contrast, nobody is rushing to build new coal plants or oil wells that offer similar local financial benefits at scale; the growth just isn’t there.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: This retreat on renewables sends a message to the world that the U.S. is not serious about its clean energy commitments. It’s embarrassing when the U.S. President is effectively saying “we don’t trust wind power,” while even developing countries are installing turbines as fast as they can to meet energy needs cleanly. We relinquish our chance to be seen as a leader in renewable tech.
It also weakens our hand in international climate discussions – how can we urge other nations to ramp up their renewable energy if we halt ours? And strategically, it gives China (already the biggest manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels) an even bigger upper hand in the global clean energy race. They can point to our inconsistency and use it to court partners with their technology and financing, filling the gap we leave.
How to Fight Back:
- State-Level Renewable Targets: States are free to continue promoting wind and solar. Many coastal states, for instance, set their own offshore wind procurement goals. They can continue those efforts by inviting developers to build projects in state waters or pressing the federal government through legal means to honor existing lease contracts. Citizens and activists should support state legislation that requires increasing percentages of power to come from renewables – effectively ensuring there’s demand that will push projects forward when the federal hold is lifted.
- Public Opinion & Education: There’s still a lot of misinformation about renewables, and Trump capitalizes on that. We need to double down on public education about the safety and benefits of wind and solar. Highlight the success stories: the towns revived by wind farm income, the fact that Texas (of all places) gets a huge chunk of its power from wind without the grid failing, or that Iowa generates over 50% of its electricity from wind. When the public understands that renewables work and create jobs, it builds political pressure that even this administration might find hard to ignore. Already, polls show strong support for clean energy across the political spectrum.
- Litigate Unjustified Delays: If the “temporary” pause drags on without any legitimate scientific basis, renewable energy companies could sue for relief, especially if they’ve been materially harmed after investing based on prior policy. They should explore legal avenues, and we should pay attention to those cases. The administration must still follow laws like the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which gives some authority to pause leasing but not arbitrarily forever. If they overreach, courts can intervene.
- Keep Investing and Innovating: Private sector and local cooperatives can continue smaller-scale projects even if big federal-backed ones stall. This is a time for resilience: universities, labs, and companies should continue R&D on wind, solar, and energy storage so that when the policy climate is favorable again, the technology is even more advanced and ready to deploy. Those of us in business can make sure our companies buy renewable power (via contracts called power purchase agreements) and install on-site solar or storage where feasible. Show that demand remains strong.
- Future Proofing: When environmental progress resumes at the federal level, one lesson is to create durable support structures for renewables that can’t be easily unraveled. For example, long-term tax credits for renewables locked in by law, or even a national clean energy standard legislated by Congress, would provide certainty that outlasts any one president. These are fights for another day, but we must prepare the groundwork now by building broad coalitions that include not just environmentalists, but also labor (for the jobs), national security hawks (for the resilience), and consumers (for the cost savings).
Dismantling Environmental Justice and Equity Initiatives
Overview: In an alarming but unsurprising move, Trump issued orders to eliminate federal efforts focused on Environmental Justice (EJ) – the principle that all people, regardless of race or income, deserve equal protection from environmental harms. He directed every agency to abolish their “environmental justice” offices or programs, ended the Justice40 initiative (which aimed to direct 40% of climate investment benefits to disadvantaged communities), and generally erased the progress made under Biden (and even prior administrations) to address the disproportionate pollution burdens faced by low-income and minority communities.
These orders were part of a broader purge of anything labeled “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI),” which the administration has painted as ideological “waste.” In effect, rules that asked agencies to consider the health impacts on fence-line communities near refineries or toxic waste sites are being tossed out. Agencies are no longer required to seek input from marginalized communities when permitting a new industrial facility. The voices of environmental justice advocates are being sidelined at the federal level.
Trump’s Justification: The official line is that focusing on EJ or equity is a form of “reverse discrimination” or “identity politics” that violates the ideal of treating everyone the same. Trump asserts that removing these programs “restores merit-based” decision making and stops “radical activists” from slowing down projects with complaints about racism or inequality. He even frames it as a safety issue, bizarrely suggesting that considering equity “threatens the safety of American men, women, and children” – likely a coded appeal to those who think any emphasis on racial justice is dangerous or un-American.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: Environmental justice exists as a focus because for generations, poor communities, especially communities of color, have been dumped on – literally. They are more likely to live near power plants, highways, landfills, and chemical factories. They suffer higher rates of asthma, cancers, and other illnesses as a result. EJ policies were about recognizing these disparities and actively working to fix them: by directing more resources to clean up polluted neighborhoods, by ensuring new permits include community input and safeguards, by tracking which communities are overburdened and trying to lighten that load. By wiping away EJ offices and mandates, the administration is effectively saying those Americans’ specific struggles will no longer be a priority.
The immediate harm is that projects likely to cause pollution can proceed with less analysis of who they hurt the most. A proposed refinery expansion or a new pipeline might skip the step of evaluating impacts on a nearby tribal community or historically Black neighborhood. Without that analysis, there’s less chance of mitigating the harm or considering alternatives. It silences the voices of residents who know the local situation best and deserve a say in decisions affecting their environment.
In the long run, this deepens inequality. Pollution and climate impacts will continue to hit vulnerable communities first and worst, and our government is turning a blind eye. Public health gaps will widen – we’ll see potentially higher disease rates in some areas without the targeted interventions that were planned as part of things like Justice40 (which was meant to funnel money into lead pipe replacement, transit, cleanup, etc., in underserved areas). By denying the problem, the administration makes it harder for these communities to ever catch up or be made whole.
From a business angle, this is also counterproductive. Many leading companies have embraced environmental justice principles, working with communities to ensure responsible operations. Why? Because it lowers conflict, builds goodwill, and often improves outcomes. If a big project steamrolls a neighborhood, it can end up in protests, lawsuits, and delays – not good for business.
Proactively addressing EJ can actually streamline projects by solving issues upfront and sharing benefits (like jobs or better infrastructure) with the local community. By removing the federal emphasis on EJ, Trump might think he’s clearing roadblocks for industry, but he might just be setting the stage for more clashes and public relations disasters when marginalized groups inevitably rise up to protest being ignored. Smart businesses know that “equity” is not a dirty word, but part of earning and maintaining a social license to operate.
How It Undermines U.S. Leadership: Domestically, it’s a huge step back from American ideals of fairness. Internationally, it tarnishes our image in yet another way. The world is watching how countries handle the transition to clean energy – whether it’s done justly or in a way that leaves people behind.
Under Biden, the U.S. was vocal about ensuring the transition addressed inequality (he often said, “when I think climate change, I think jobs,” implying good jobs for those who need them most). Many nations, especially those in the developing world, emphasize equity in climate discussions (like the concept of climate justice globally – that rich countries should help poorer ones). By abandoning EJ, the U.S. looks morally obtuse, undermining our moral leadership. It’s one more arena – alongside human rights and racial justice – where other countries can point to America’s hypocrisy. Also, less tangibly, when the U.S. innovates in policy (like Clinton’s original environmental justice Executive Order in 1994 or Biden’s Justice40 program), it often influences others to do the same. Now we’re undoing it, missing the chance to be a model for how to grow a green economy that benefits everyone.
How to Fight Back:
- State and Local Action: Many states (like New Jersey, New York, and California) have passed their own strong environmental justice laws and regulations in recent years. These can partially fill the void. We should support state-level enforcement of EJ: for example, states can refuse permits for new polluting facilities in overburdened communities if impacts are too high. Community groups and activists will likely focus energies on these local battles, where they have more leverage right now. If you live in a state without such protections, push your state legislators to adopt EJ laws that ensure no community becomes a dumping ground.
- Community Advocacy: Even without a federal mandate, community voices can still influence outcomes. We can help amplify those voices. Attend local zoning meetings, permit hearings, city council sessions where a polluting project is up for approval. Demand that decision-makers consider equity, even if it’s not required. Media exposure can also shame companies or agencies into doing the right thing. If an agency won’t assess who a factory will harm, community groups can do their own “health impact assessments” and release them to the public and press.
- Support EJ Organizations: Grassroots environmental justice organizations have always been underfunded and scrappy, doing heroic work with few resources. Now their fight just got harder. Contributing money or volunteer time to groups like the Climate Justice Alliance, local EJ networks, or legal aid organizations that represent impacted communities can make a huge difference. They will be on the front lines ensuring that, even if the federal government steps back, someone is holding polluters to account.
- Election Accountability: This dramatic reversal on EJ needs to be a voting issue. The only way these policies get restored is if leaders who care about environmental justice are in power. That means voting in every election, from president down to county commissioners. It also means pressing candidates on these issues: ask them how they plan to address the unequal burden of pollution and climate change. We must connect the dots for voters that environmental rollbacks hurt real families and neighborhoods. Building a broad coalition – including civil rights groups, churches, health advocates – to speak up for EJ can create political pressure to reinstate these programs.
- Restore and Legislate: When the political winds shift, restoring the federal focus on EJ will be a top priority. This time, we should try to cement it in ways harder to undo. For example, make the requirement to consider environmental justice part of environmental laws like the Clean Air Act or NEPA, rather than just an executive order. Congress could also reauthorize and strengthen the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice explicitly. Biden’s team had launched initiatives (like mapping tools to identify disadvantaged areas) that can be preserved at state levels for now and resurrected federally later. The knowledge and frameworks aren’t lost, they’re just shelved – we need to keep them alive until they can be officially used again.
“People Over Fish” – Shortchanging Sustainable Water Management (a false dichotomy)
Overview: In a nod to big agribusiness interests, the Trump administration revived a policy often summarized as “putting people over fish” in California’s water system. A new executive order directs federal agencies to divert more water from northern California rivers southward to farms and cities, scaling back the water left in rivers and delta estuaries for environmental purposes. Essentially, it seeks to override Endangered Species Act protections that for decades have required a certain flow of water to remain in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to support fish populations (like the Chinook salmon and delta smelt).
By calling environmental limits “radical environmentalism,” Trump is signaling that pumping maximum water to industrial agriculture in the Central Valley is the priority, even if it further imperils fish species and the health of California’s vital delta ecosystem. The order also talks about “improved vegetation management” — likely a euphemism for thinning forests to possibly increase water runoff — but its core is reallocating water away from conservation uses.
Trump’s Justification: He frames it as delivering water to people who need it and boosting food production. The rhetoric suggests that bureaucrats have been “wasting” water by letting it flow out to sea ostensibly just for a few fish, whereas his plan will ensure water is used for crops and human needs. Given California’s frequent droughts, he pitches this as a common-sense move to quench Southern California’s thirst and help farmers grow more, thereby lowering food prices and helping the economy.
Why Trump’s Policy is Harmful and Dangerous: Water in the West is a zero-sum game in many years – giving more to one use means less for another. The environmental protections that limit pumping were put in place because the delta ecosystem was on the brink of collapse. Fish like the delta smelt are not just some obscure species; they’re indicators of the overall health of an estuary that supports thousands of jobs in fishing and is key to the Pacific flyway for migratory birds.
Already, over-pumping and drought have caused steep declines in fisheries; some salmon runs are at record lows, hurting indigenous tribes and commercial fishermen alike. Reducing environmental flows further could push some species to extinction. That’s not just an ecological tragedy but also can have unforeseen consequences for water quality – if the delta becomes too stagnant or salty due to less fresh water, that can make the water undrinkable or unusable even for farms (saltwater intrusion is a real risk).
Moreover, the notion that this is “people vs fish” is a false dichotomy. In reality, millions of Californians depend on a healthy delta for their water quality and for flood control. Destroying ecosystems tends to bite back at humans – if fish populations crash, it might trigger more severe restrictions later on (courts can step in when species face extinction, sometimes imposing even harsher rules). Short-term water grabs could thus lead to long-term water loss if the system collapses.
Additionally, California’s agriculture, while incredibly important, has other ways to improve water efficiency (like better irrigation tech, switching to less water-intensive crops in some areas) that don’t involve killing off species. By ignoring these solutions and just turning up the pumps, Trump’s policy encourages unsustainable farming practices to continue, setting everyone up for a bigger disaster when the next drought hits even harder due to climate change.
Public health can be indirectly affected too. Consider communities in the delta that rely on local wells or the ecosystem for their livelihood – a degraded environment could harm their water supply and economy. And statewide, if environmental destruction leads to algal blooms or other water quality issues, those can produce toxins harmful to people.
Long-Term Competitiveness: Agriculture is a business, and it needs predictability. Climate change is already making water supplies less predictable. The smartest path for agriculture is to adapt with efficiency and new technology, not to pretend we can just take more water out of nature indefinitely. By pursuing a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem, Trump’s policy does a disservice to farmers in the long run.
When environmental backlash or the next drought inevitably forces a correction, it might be even more painful. In contrast, countries like Israel or Australia that faced water scarcity have become leaders in conservation, drip irrigation, desalination, and water recycling. Those are industries and expertise that American farmers and companies could lead in – but not if we just pursue maximal extraction.
Also, California’s economy is far more diverse than just ag – the state’s tech and recreation sectors also depend on reliable water and a healthy environment to attract talent and tourists. So this “people over fish” mentality, by degrading California’s natural appeal and resilience, could indirectly make the state (and by extension, the country) a less attractive place for businesses unrelated to farming too.
How It Undermines Leadership: The world is facing water crises everywhere – from the Ganges to the Mekong to the Colorado River. The U.S. historically has had some of the best water management expertise and environmental laws to balance uses. Abandoning that balance in our biggest agricultural state sets a poor example. It suggests that when times get tough, we’ll just sacrifice nature completely, rather than innovate or share. That’s not the leadership by example one would hope for from America.
Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act is a gold-standard law that many countries envy; showing that we might override it for convenience weakens our stance when we urge other nations to protect their endangered species. It also feeds the narrative that environmental protection is a luxury – something only rich countries do when it’s easy, but toss out when inconvenient. That’s the opposite of the message we need to send to effectively tackle global environmental challenges.
How to Fight Back:
- Legal Action and State Resistance: Water rights and environmental protections in California involve a complex interplay of state and federal law. California state agencies and environmental groups will almost certainly challenge any federal move to change water delivery if it violates the Endangered Species Act or other provisions. We should back those challenges. The state can also use its own authority – for instance, California could enforce its own ecological standards for the delta, effectively countering federal attempts. Public support for Governor and state officials to stand firm will be important; this is not just a federal issue, it’s a state sovereignty issue too.
- Promote Water Sustainability: Rather than simply fighting the rollback, offer better paths. Advocate for investment in water recycling plants, stormwater capture, fixing leaking infrastructure, and incentive programs for farmers to install drip irrigation. Show that we can “find” more water by using what we have more wisely, without draining the environment. Californians did a tremendous job conserving water during the recent drought – habits and policies formed then (low-flow appliances, drought-tolerant landscaping) should be celebrated and continued. Highlight these successes whenever someone claims we “need” to take water from the fish.
- Public Awareness: The slogan “fish vs people” is emotionally powerful but misleading. We need to change the narrative: it’s about people AND fish, because we’re ultimately in the same boat. Support public education campaigns that explain how a healthy delta benefits everyone, including Southern California residents who might not realize that their water comes through that ecosystem. Groups that unite fishermen, farmers, and urban users to find solutions can be effective ambassadors – it shows this isn’t a city vs country or people vs environment issue, but a common cause.
- Technological Innovation: Encourage tech companies and research institutions to focus on water solutions. If California’s Central Valley became a testing ground for cutting-edge irrigation tech or drought-resistant crop varieties, for example, it could increase yields and reduce water usage simultaneously. That’s a win-win. Federal policy might be stuck in the past right now, but local initiatives and private sector can pave the way for a future where we aren’t fighting over water because we’ve learned to stretch every drop. We should push for more funding (at state level or via private investment) into these forward-looking projects.
- Restore Balance: Assuming this policy is halted either by courts or future admin, we should think ahead on how to prevent this whiplash in water policy. One idea is negotiated settlements – when stakeholders (farmers, tribes, environmentalists, urban water suppliers) come together to agree on water sharing plans, it’s harder for one politician to undo it. The Colorado River, for instance, is governed by compacts that are hard to break. Promoting a comprehensive water agreement in California that includes strong ecosystem guarantees could immunize it against the whims of Washington. It may sound idealistic, but broad coalitions could push for a new “California Water Deal” that secures water for all needs fairly, which Congress or the state legislature could then codify.
What’s Next? – The Looming Threats and Promises of More Damage
If the first few months of 2025 are any indication, President Trump is only warming up in his campaign to dismantle environmental protections. His speeches and campaign promises (what he dubbed “Agenda 47”) outline an even more extreme vision that should concern every American who cares about clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. Here’s what we likely face on the horizon if we don’t intervene:
- Further Gutting the EPA and Science Agencies: Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the Environmental Protection Agency – in his first term he slashed its budget and sidelined scientists. Now, emboldened by allies in Congress, we can expect attempts to drastically cut funding for climate research, pollution monitoring, and enforcement.
There’s talk of firing or reassigning government scientists who work on climate change (under a revived plan to strip job protections for federal civil servants). This could hollow out the technical expertise in agencies like EPA, NOAA, and the Department of Energy, leaving us flying blind on emerging environmental threats. If EPA enforcement staff are cut, industries might feel free to pollute more, knowing there are fewer cops on the beat.
- Attacks on Foundational Laws: Watch for efforts to weaken bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act through legislation or extreme legal interpretations. For instance, the administration might push Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to strip EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases explicitly – a disastrous step backwards that some in industry have long lobbied for. Or they might try to carve out exemptions in the Clean Water Act so certain polluters don’t need permits.
The Endangered Species Act’s requirements could be loosened so economic factors weigh more heavily against saving a species. Such changes would be hard to reverse and could lock in environmental decline for decades.
- Rollbacks of New Vehicle and Appliance Standards: Biden’s term saw proposals for stronger fuel economy and tailpipe emissions standards (to encourage EVs), and stricter limits on pollution from trucks, as well as improved energy-efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. Trump’s team has already hit pause on these; next they’ll likely formally rescind or water them down. That means cars and trucks in the future could be less efficient and more polluting than they otherwise would – costing drivers more on gas and worsening urban air quality.
It also means our homes and buildings might continue wasting energy because the federal government won’t push for that next generation of efficient furnaces or air conditioners. We’ll feel this in the form of higher utility bills and more smog-choked cities.
- Expanded Drilling and Mining Everywhere: Beyond Alaska, expect a nationwide push to open more public lands and offshore areas to oil, gas, and coal extraction. The Gulf of Mexico could see a surge of new offshore drilling leases. The administration could attempt to open the Atlantic or Pacific coasts to drilling (despite bipartisan opposition from coastal states). Onshore, areas near national parks or monuments that were previously off-limits might be offered to mining companies.
The administration might also fast-track permits for controversial pipelines (like resurrecting the Keystone XL pipeline project to import Canadian tar sands oil, which was stopped under Biden). If these moves succeed, more communities will be put in the path of potential oil spills, water contamination, and the economic instability that often accompanies resource booms.
- Obstructing Climate Action at All Levels: We can anticipate federal interference in progressive climate policies at state or local levels. For example, Trump’s EPA could attempt to revoke California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act that lets the state set tougher car emission standards (a fight that already happened once in the late 2010s). There might be efforts to preempt states from enacting their own climate rules on power plants or banning natural gas in buildings. Basically, not content with federal inaction, the administration might try to drag down the leaders too. Internationally, the U.S. might become an obstacle in climate negotiations, possibly encouraging other countries to water down their commitments or even forming a bloc of climate laggards.
- Empowering Polluters, Not Innovators: All signals suggest Trump will continue favoring incumbent polluting industries (oil, coal, petrochemicals) through subsidies, tax breaks, and rollbacks, at the expense of emerging green industries. We might see tax incentives for fossil fuel production or even attempts to subsidize coal plants to keep them running (as was attempted in his first term under the guise of grid resilience).
Meanwhile, renewable energy developers or companies trying to build electric charging infrastructure could see less federal support or more hurdles. This misalignment means capital and talent flow toward sunsetting industries instead of sunrise industries – a losing strategy for competitiveness. It’s like betting on typewriters in the age of computers.
- Ignoring Climate Risk in Planning: One subtle but critical future action is the likely removal of climate considerations from federal planning. Under Obama and Biden, agencies started to incorporate the “social cost of carbon” (a metric of climate damage) in their decision-making and to plan infrastructure with climate resilience in mind (for instance, not building in flood-prone areas without safeguards).
Trump’s approach will be to ignore those considerations – no more accounting for carbon emissions in a pipeline’s environmental review, no more flood standards for building bridges or facilities. That means more infrastructure built that could become future liabilities (like a Navy base or highway that ends up regularly underwater due to sea-level rise). It’s a hidden cost that will come due later, making us less prepared for the climate impacts that we know are coming.
In sum, the trajectory is clear: unless checked, this agenda will maximize short-term exploitation and minimize long-term responsibility. It threatens to leave the next generation a country with dirtier air, poisoned water, a harsher climate, and an economy lagging in the global clean tech race. The silver lining, if any, is that many of these anticipated moves will ignite fierce opposition – and that gives us a chance to rally and defend our future.
Conclusion: Stand Up, Speak Out – Our Future Is Worth the Fight
The stakes in 2025 could not be higher. President Trump’s assault on environmental safeguards is an assault on the health of our families, the stability of our climate, and the integrity of our economy. But this is not the time to despair – it’s the time to take action with urgency and passion. As someone who’s navigated the business world for decades, I firmly believe that Americans are at our best when we face challenges head on and innovate our way to a better future. We’ve done it before – reducing pollution while growing our economy – and we can do it again even in the face of this temporary setback.
Every one of us has a role to play in turning the tide:
- Make Your Voice Heard: Don’t underestimate the power of contacting your elected officials. Write, call, and visit your representatives – local, state, and federal – to demand they oppose these rollbacks. Tell them personal stories: if you or your community will be hurt by these policies, they need to know. Flood town halls with questions about climate and health. (For practical tips on effectively getting politicians to listen, see my article "How to Make Your Voice Heard: The Ultimate Guide to Getting Politicians to Listen to YOU and Take Action" – it’s a great resource on engaging with our democracy.)
- Mobilize and Organize: Join marches, rallies, and community meetings. There’s a growing movement of people from all walks of life – from students to CEOs – coming together to defend our environmental future. Add your voice. Volunteer with local environmental groups or climate justice organizations. Help register voters and campaign for candidates who prioritize sustainability. This fight transcends politics; it’s about protecting our home.
- Support Environmental Champions: Many organizations are battling on the front lines through litigation, advocacy, and grassroots organizing. They need our support. Consider donating your time or money to trusted environmental groups that align with your values. Here are a few leading organizations doing crucial work to safeguard our environment and justice for communities:
1. Sierra Club – A historic grassroots organization fighting for clean air, clean water, and wild places nationwide, and empowering local activists.
2. Earthjustice – A nonprofit environmental law firm that goes to court to stop polluters and hold the government accountable to the law (“Because the earth needs a good lawyer” is their motto).
3. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – A team of scientists, lawyers, and policy experts who combine research with legal action and lobbying to defend environmental protections.
4. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – An organization known for working with businesses, government, and communities to craft innovative solutions on climate, energy, and pollution issues.
5. Climate Justice Alliance – A coalition of grassroots organizations focused on environmental justice, ensuring that the transition to a clean economy includes and uplifts frontline communities who have borne the brunt of pollution.
6. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) - Founded in 1961, WWF operates in nearly 100 countries, focusing on conserving nature and reducing threats to biodiversity. The organization supports around 1,300 conservation and environmental projects globally.
7. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) - Founded in 1951, TNC focuses on conserving lands and waters worldwide. The organization has protected over 125 million acres of land and operates more than 100 marine conservation projects globally.
- Live Your Values: While systemic change is crucial, individual and business choices do matter. If you’re in a position of leadership, push your company to adopt sustainable practices despite the federal retreat – it’s good for the brand, and it pressures peers to do the same. As an individual, reduce waste and carbon footprint where you can, and talk about it – normalize caring for the planet in your social circles. These actions inspire others and create a culture of responsibility.
- Stay Hopeful and Persistent: The greatest victories for the environment – from the Clean Air Act to the recovery of the ozone layer – came about because ordinary people refused to give up, even when the odds seemed long. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including across party lines, want clean energy and healthy communities. We are not alone; in fact, we are the majority. The politics of fear and short-term greed can be overcome by solidarity and a clear vision of a better future.
History will judge this moment by what we do next. Will we let our hard-won progress be erased, or will we rise to the occasion and demand a course correction? I have faith that Americans won’t stand idly by. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act – to ensure that when they look back at the 2020s, they see not just a time of rollbacks and climate danger, but a time when people from all walks of life united to save the future.
The road ahead won’t be easy. It will be filled with legal battles, electoral fights, and constant advocacy. But every voice matters, and together we can steer this country back toward leadership, sanity, and sustainability.
And let’s remember that the environment is not a partisan issue – it’s the bedrock of our lives and economy. So let’s defend it with all we’ve got. Now is the time to stand up and be heard, loud and clear, for the sake of America’s soul and the planet we call home.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
This post is free.
But free doesn’t build the future.
Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in—not just with attention, but with support.
If this work matters to you, today’s a great day to take the leap.
$7 a month. $70 a year.
A small investment in something bigger than all of us.
Related Summary of Trump’s Actions to Date (April 2025):
As of April 4, 2025, the Trump administration has initiated a series of executive orders, regulations, and policy changes that are projected to have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. Below is an itemized list of these actions:
1. Withdrawal from International Climate Agreements: On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14162, titled “Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements,” directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and other international climate commitments. This action undermines global efforts to combat climate change and reduces international collaboration on environmental issues. 
2. Comprehensive Environmental Deregulation: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to roll back 31 environmental regulations, marking what he described as “the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” These rollbacks target protections for air and water quality, emissions standards, and climate policies, potentially leading to increased pollution and associated health risks.
3. Rescission of Environmental Justice Initiatives: Executive Order 14148, signed on January 20, 2025, rescinded multiple executive orders from the previous administration, including those focused on advancing racial equity and environmental justice. This move dismantles efforts aimed at addressing environmental disparities affecting marginalized communities. 
4. Expansion of Fossil Fuel Development: The administration has prioritized fossil fuel production by reopening large areas of federal land, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil drilling. This policy threatens sensitive ecosystems and contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions. 
5. Suspension of Offshore Wind Projects: President Trump suspended new offshore wind leases, hindering the development of renewable energy projects. This decision stalls progress in diversifying the nation’s energy portfolio and reduces opportunities for cleaner energy alternatives. 
6. Reduction of National Forest Protections: The administration rolled back environmental protections on over half of U.S. national forests, affecting approximately 176,000 square miles. This action aims to expedite logging projects, potentially leading to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. 
7. Exemptions for Industrial Polluters: Industry groups have been offered the opportunity to apply for two-year exemptions from environmental rules, including limits on toxic substances like mercury and benzene. Such exemptions could lead to increased pollution and associated health risks. 
8. Budget Cuts to Environmental Agencies: The administration proposed significant budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including plans to dismantle its scientific research arm. These cuts hinder the agency’s ability to conduct research and enforce environmental regulations effectively. 
9. Dismantling of Climate Research Programs: Funding for climate research and regulatory frameworks has been halted, impeding efforts to understand and address climate change. This includes the cessation of key climate research initiatives and the rollback of scientific programs. 
10. Encouragement of Energy-Intensive Industries: The administration’s support for the expansion of AI and data centers, which are energy-intensive, coupled with environmental deregulation, benefits fossil fuel donors and increases demand for natural gas. This approach exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation.
Related podcast version (back and forth conversation) here.
