If You Think Trump’s First Term Was Bad for the Environment, Just Wait for the Second
Donald Trump’s disdain for environmental regulation is one of his signature polemics. He has called climate change “a hoax,” declared “I hate wind,” and until befriended by Elon Musk promised to reverse policies in support of EVs and batteries. In his 2016 campaign, he promised to get rid of EPA “in every form”. In a recent meeting with oil industry executives, he told them to donate $1 billion to his presidential campaign because if elected he would reverse environmental regulations they oppose. His first term was bad for the environment but as multiple articles have noted a second would be much worse as Trump will arrive much better prepared and supported to undermine, and to the extent possible, reverse environmental laws and regulations.
Political appointments. President Trump has consistently appointed Cabinet officials based on loyalty rather than competence. His first EPA Administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, was a good example. As an outspoken critic of environmental regulation, he had sued EPA unsuccessfully more than a dozen times. One of his more memorable lawsuits as state AG was defending a Ten Commandments Monument on the capitol grounds — also unsuccessfully.
Pruitt’s ethical misconduct including questionable housing and travel expenditures led to calls for his resignation — even by several Republican members of Congress. His replacement was Andrew Wheeler, a lawyer and former coal industry lobbyist. He continued promoting proposed rule changes to weaken environmental regulation, notably suspending penalties for corporate violation of environmental regulations if caused by the Covid pandemic. In contrast with Pruitt, his personal behavior did not become a public issue or the basis for allegations of ethical misconduct, and he was somewhat more successful though he lost numerous court challenges — which would now be much less likely due to the anti-regulatory doctrines adopted by the Supreme Court.
Replacing experts with loyalists. Knowing that Trump is only able to pick staff based on personal loyalty, right-wing ideologues have created a well-funded center located close to the Capitol for training prospective political appointees with the appropriate beliefs. Consequently, Trump can be expected to appoint agency heads and senior staff with the knowledge and competence to undermine environmental regulation more effectively than in his first term. He will also decimate the agencies by promoting the departure of senior staff and ignoring the recommendations of scientists. Lest we forget, among Trump’s many random rumblings as President was doctoring a map of Hurricane Dorian altering scientists forecasts. Not surprisingly, hundreds of senior experts resigned rather than work in such chaos, a pattern certain to be repeated.
In a major step toward undermining the independence of the civil service, the Heritage Foundation report Project 2025 calls for replacing 50,000 mid-level federal officials with political appointees, thus making the civil service even more responsive to Trump. Weeks before the 2020 election, Trump initiated a version of this strategy by issuing an executive order to create “Schedule F” (reversed by President Biden) removing civil service protection from thousands of employees, a policy estimated to increase the number of political appointments by a factor of ten. (Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, but JD Vance has been closely associated with the authors and proponents for years.)
Ignoring climate change. Neither the President nor any prominent Trump loyalists have expressed any need to take action to address climate change. The Republican Party platform and Convention made no reference to it. To the contrary, Trump has promised that “drill, baby, drill” will be among his fundamental principles, despite the fact the U.S. has become the largest energy producer and exporter under the Biden Administration. Trump’s choice for Vice President, JD Vance, is a more open and aggressive climate denier than Trump. Instead of carbon reduction goals, Project 2025 would prioritize increasing energy production and the leading climate research program in the federal government would be eliminated due to its role as the source of “climate alarmism”. Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement takes four years and thus would only take effect at the end of a second Trump term, but negotiators should expect no progress on the two most important issues — emission reduction targets and financial support for developing countries adversely impacted by climate change.
Reversing environmental laws and regulations. If Republicans win majorities in both the House and Senate in addition to the Presidency, even greater damage to environmental policy is possible. First, by reversing regulations issued within 60 days of the end of the Congressional session, likely to include many environmental rules. Second, by legislating measures with environmentally damaging consequences, like drilling and mining on public lands. Third, repealing environmental legislation — difficult if the filibuster rules remain in effect, but also not certain. Some of the proposals put forward by House Republicans this term include cutting the EPA budget to levels not seen since 1991; mandating at least two offshore oil and gas sales in the Gulf of Mexico and two off the coast of Alaska annually; and “immediately” resuming quarterly oil and gas lease auctions on public lands in states with federal minerals. However, there is reason to hope that some support for EVs and other climate related technologies may survive thanks to market forces and Trump support from clean energy billionaires like Elon Musk and large investment in red states.
Support from Right Wing Judges. While during his tenure EPA removed, relaxed, or delayed dozens of environmental rules, many decisions were poorly justified and reversed by courts. Thanks to Trump appointed judges, judicial support for Biden era environmental regulations is already in decline. The reversal of the Chevron doctrine removed a precedent of many decades giving deference to EPA’s interpretation of ambiguous statutory language. Another decision included adoption of the “major questions” doctrine, requiring greater justification for regulations with significant economic costs — regardless of the environmental benefits.
Donald Trump’s disdain for environmental goals may be only one of his many offensive and disturbing beliefs. However, the election comes at a time when U.S. leadership on climate change and other environmental matters has never been more important. Multiple catastrophic and potentially irreversible tipping points are now closer than ever. If elected to a second term, Trump’s anti-environmental policies may therefore be among the most consequential and devastating of his administration.
