Trump administration revokes ALL environmental legislations (1 Viewer)

[Maffong]

English is not my native language and I don't understand how US legislation works (or IF it actually still works), but the way I understand the executive order "Zero-based Regulatory Budgeting to unleash American Energy" signed by Trump on April 9th 2025, basically all federal laws aimed at conservation of the environment are meant to be revoked.

The most important parts seem to be the following sentences:
Sec. 4 (b) "(...) An agency shall not take any action to enforce such an ineffective regulation and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, shall remove it from the Code of Federal Regulations. "
together with Sec: 3 (i):
"For the FWS, this order applies to all regulations issued pursuant to the following statutes and any amendments thereto:
(i) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act;
(ii) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918;
(iii) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934;
(iv) the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965;
(v) the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972;
(vi) the Endangered Species Act of 1973;
(vii) the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976; and
(viii) the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982."

I'm at a loss for words here and I kind of hope that I have misunderstood something here, but this is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a Trump administration, so my hopes are not very high.

It is my impression that this has not been picked up by any major news source, so I urge everyone to share this info as far as possible!!!

 

[dedennedillo]

I support the potential secession of Hawai'i.

 

[Jim M.]

From MSN: Trump Orders Federal Agencies to 'Sunset' Green Protections

"・Environmental officials and activists aren't pleased. "Attempting to repeal every environmental safeguard enacted over the past 50 years with an executive order is beyond delusional," says Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity, per the Hill. Hartl calls the directive "farcical," saying it will destroy measures "that protect endangered whales, prevent oil spills, and reduce the risk of a nuclear accident."

・Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School's Electricity Law Initiative, calls the order "impossible to implement," "blatantly illegal," and "deeply misguided," saying it "just makes no sense" and "reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how agencies work," per Utility Dive.

・Hartl adds to the Hill that "steps like this will be laughed out of court." Indeed, consumer watchdog group Public Citizen has already indicated it plans to sue."

 

[Jim M.]

English is not my native language andI don't understand how US legislation works

Also note that in the U.S. "legislation" is very different from "regulation". Legislation means laws that can only be changed with congressional approval. Regulation refers to rules issued by executive agencies pursuant to legislation. Not even the president can change legislation by executive order.

 

[mjh73]

Also note that in the U.S. "legislation" is very different from "regulation". Legislation means laws that can only be changed with congressional approval. Regulation refers to rules issued by executive agencies pursuant to legislation. Not even the president can change legislation by executive order.

That is the convention and expectation.

Whether it holds under the current regime is about to be tested I reckon.

 

[Maffong]

Answers I have received elsewhere sound very pessimistic and I fear that I have to agree with these takes:

he definitely doesn't have the power, but his administration has been powered pretty much entirely by "because I said so" and a little known rule of "nobody will stop me"

because it's an EO, the legal system can challenge it, but it's pretty much a done deal. With the house passing the limitation on district courts recently too, it might have to go all the way to the supreme Court before it could be stopped.

 

[Swindon Addick]

It's dangerous to read too much detail into things issued by the current administration, but it's worth noting that this doesn't pretend to actually revoke the legislation - it's asking authorities to withdraw regulations and guidance where the legislation allows them to do that.

Will it be bad for the environment? Of course. Lots of things in the US are going to be bad for at least the next few years. Exactly how bad it will be depends on the extent to which the relevant laws force the authorities to issue regulations (which they won't be able to stop doing but may be able to make more flexible) or whether they're given a choice as to how many regulations to issue, in which case we can expect to see lots of stuff cancelled and resulting damage to habitats. I don't know enough about these laws to know how bad things are, but I do know that thee are some very good environmental groups in the US and they will do whatever the law allows them to do to minimise damage.

For what it's worth, the grapevine among the US employees at my workplace, which has got extremely anxious about some of the Trump administration's actions in the last few months, hasn't even twitched about this. So they seem to think they shouldn't panic until they see what the various bodies actually propose.

 

[Jim M.]

That is the convention and expectation.

Whether it holds under the current regime is about to be tested I reckon.

The order doesn't purport to revoke legislation but only concerns regulations, so whether Trump attempts to subvert the Constitution in that respect is not really an issue for this thread.

 

[Lisa W]

He can’t revoke legislation, unfortunately he has nothing but yes men in the positions these orders impact. They will see how far they can go until a court somewhere reins them in. And, again unfortunately, if it gets to the Supreme Court the majority are his sychophants that will do his bidding.

 

[Mysticete]

More craptacular news
(Seriously...how can any birder even remotely support this administration?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/16/endangered-species-harm-habitat/

TLDR: The Trump administration is moving to narrow the scope of the Endangered Species Act to exclude habitat destruction. So basically you can't shoot a spotted owl, but you could cut down every last bit of forest they live in, with no penalty. Given that habitat destruction is probably the main contributor for many species being threatened, This basically tosses the law into the garbage.

 

[MJB]

Not even the president can change legislation by executive order.

Not yet...
MJB

 

[Jim M.]

Not yet...
MJB

If he changes legislation then he is no longer president, but dictator.

 

[MJB]

If he changes legislation then he is no longer president, but dictator.

Given his impending clash with the US Supreme Court (who had voted 9-0 against him), that would appear to be his preferred position...
MJB

 

[dedennedillo]

But then if he wants to decimate the ESA ... what's the point if he wants to decimate the effectiveness of all the regulations anyway?

 

[Mysticete]

Trump increasingly moving closer and closer to operating in out right defiance of the court. The first time around, there were enough reasonable people still at agencies to stymie him, but those have all been replaced with toadies. The supreme court can tell them to do something, but the courts only work with the assumption people will obey them. If all of his toadies just refuse to carry out orders, or if they just fire almost everyone at an agency, well then...