They’re Destroying Everything We Love: Trump’s 2025 Assault on the Environment and Our Future
Drill. Burn. Gut. Repeat. The Environmental Wrecking Ball Is Here
Earth Day isn’t just about planting trees, it’s about protecting the one home we all share from greed, pollution, and political power plays. If we let Trump’s 2025 executive orders stand, we’re not just ignoring the planet—we’re abandoning our kids’ right to breathe clean air and drink safe water.
Introduction
I’m a lawyer, a father, and an American who’s spent a lifetime hiking the deserts of Arizona and the mountains of California. I believe our land, our air, water, and wild spaces, is part of what makes this country worth fighting for. But right now, as I sit in my law office watching the flurry of executive orders coming out of Trump’s White House, I’m not just concerned. I’m furious. Because what’s happening isn’t leadership, it’s sabotage. And it’s putting our environment, our health, and our future on the chopping block.
In just a few short months of 2025, Trump has unleashed a barrage of executive orders and actions that strike at the heart of America’s environmental protections. Each one carries a sterile official title and number, but behind those dry numbers lie real threats to our environment, our communities, and even our democracy.
Let’s break down exactly what’s been happening under Trump’s current administration and why it should matter to everyday Americans:
Unleashing American Energy (Executive Order 14154, January 20, 2025)
On Inauguration Day, President Trump wasted no time declaring open season on our environmental safeguards. This sweeping order rolled back or “reviewed” virtually every policy that might restrain fossil fuel development. It directed all federal agencies to comb through their rules and “suspend, revise, or rescind” anything that could be considered an impediment to drilling, mining, or burning fossil fuels.
In one stroke, Trump effectively told agencies to ignore climate change, fast-track permits for pipelines and oil wells, and even pause programs that help us shift to clean energy. The order explicitly revoked a dozen or more of his predecessor’s climate-oriented executive orders and reinstated some from his first term that had been junked – all with the goal of tearing down regulations.
Why does this matter? Because those “burdensome” regulations Trump targeted include things like limits on power plant carbon emissions, rules that keep our cars from polluting too much, and safeguards that stop industries from dumping toxins into streams. By shredding these rules, Executive Order 14154 is clearing the way for more pollution.
It means companies will find it easier to drill for oil on public lands, to mine coal, to build gas pipelines across sensitive areas, often without regard for the environmental costs. And it tries to do all this fast. The order even halted funding for clean energy projects and infrastructure (money that Congress approved in the Inflation Reduction Act and other laws) under the pretense of “review.”
As a lawyer, I have to note how brazen that is: the President essentially directed agencies not to spend money that Congress specifically set aside for things like electric vehicle charging stations and renewable energy. In my opinion this is not only harmful to our environment, it also tramples on Congress’s power of the purse.
But legalities aside, think about the real-world impact. Less money and support for the growing clean energy jobs that many American workers have started to count on, and more handouts to the oil and gas industry that just saw record profits. Trump’s message with this order is unmistakable: Fossil fuels first, everything else last. If you’re an oil executive, you cheer. If you’re a parent worried about climate-driven wildfires or storms, you shudder.
Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential (Executive Order 14153, January 20, 2025)
Also signed on Day One, this order zeroes in on one of America’s last great wild frontiers: Alaska. In lofty language about “untapped wealth,” Trump directed the government to overturn virtually every protection that stood in the way of extracting Alaska’s oil, gas, coal, and minerals.
This executive order specifically took aim at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – a vast, pristine wilderness that Indigenous communities and environmentalists have fought for decades to keep off-limits to drilling. Under this order, the Interior Department is told to scrap the moratorium on oil leasing in the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain and start offering new leases as soon as possible. It also overturns recent decisions that had cancelled drilling leases in the area, and it revives old pro-drilling plans from Trump’s first term that had been shelved.
And it’s not just the Arctic Refuge. The order pushes to open up the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for more oil development by reversing protections that were put in place to shield sensitive habitats like the Teshekpuk Lake region. It even calls for resurrecting a controversial road project (the Ambler Road) that would cut through untouched wild lands to reach mining sites. From forests to tundra, if it’s in Alaska and there’s fuel or minerals under it, Trump wants it dug up.
The human and environmental consequences may be enormous. The Arctic Refuge, for example, is often called America’s Serengeti, home to polar bears, caribou herds, and migratory birds that travel to all 50 states. Drilling there threatens that wildlife and the Gwich’in people who rely on the caribou. And opening more of Alaska to heavy industry means more oil rigs on fragile permafrost (which is already melting due to climate change), more risk of spills that could devastate rivers and coastlines, and more carbon pumped into our atmosphere.
Legally, some of these moves will be fought in court, because agencies can’t just ignore environmental impact studies and treaty obligations to Alaska Natives. But Trump’s order sends a clear signal: the administration prioritizes resource extraction over conservation or tribal rights. If you’ve never been to the Arctic, this still matters because it’s a climate issue too. The more oil we drill and burn, the more we turbocharge global warming. And climate change doesn’t stay in Alaska, it comes for all of us, whether in the form of more extreme hurricanes hitting our coasts or droughts in our heartland.
Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (Executive Order 14162, January 20, 2025)
As if overturning domestic protections wasn’t enough for Day One, President Trump also turned his sights abroad. In this executive order, he formally announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement – again. (The previous administration had rejoined the global climate pact, but Trump’s not having it.) He instructed our U.N. Ambassador to send notice to the U.N. that the U.S. is pulling out of the Paris climate accord, effective immediately. For the record, under the agreement’s rules you’re supposed to wait a year for withdrawal to take effect; Trump doesn’t care, he wants out now.
This order also canceled any U.S. contributions to international climate funds or commitments under the U.N. climate framework. In plainer terms, that means America will no longer chip in to help poorer countries deal with climate change or transition to clean energy, breaking promises we made. It’s the “America First” doctrine applied to the planet: never mind that climate change is a global problem requiring cooperation; if Trump thinks an agreement might “unfairly burden” the U.S. (as the order puts it), he’ll toss it.
The Paris Agreement is imperfect, sure, but it’s currently the only international framework we have for all nations to cut greenhouse emissions. By pulling the U.S. out, Trump is effectively telling the world that the second-largest carbon polluter on Earth (that’s us, America) refuses to help solve a crisis we helped create. That isolationist approach could have ripple effects, encouraging other countries to slack off on their commitments or fueling international resentment.
Domestically, it means we lose out on the benefits of being part of the global clean energy boom. The world is moving ahead with or without us, investing in solar, wind, and new technologies; if the U.S. sits out, our businesses and workers may miss opportunities in those growing industries.
From a values perspective, this withdrawal is heartbreaking. It says that we as a nation are okay with standing by as climate impacts worsen. We’re turning our back on allies (and on vulnerable nations already suffering droughts and floods) in order to appease the fossil fuel lobby at home. It’s hard to think of a more cynical message to send to young Americans and future generations who will live with the consequences.
Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council (Executive Order 14213, February 14, 2025)
Not long after the initial blitz of day-one orders, President Trump signed another order creating something called the National Energy Dominance Council. The very name made my eyebrows go up.
This council, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior (a Trump appointee known for cozy ties to the oil industry), is essentially a high-level task force inside the White House with a mandate to make the United States “energy dominant” by any means necessary. In practice, that means its job is to coordinate and accelerate all the federal agencies’ efforts to boost oil, gas, and coal production, and to eliminate obstacles (like environmental reviews or even public objections) that might slow that down.
Normally, decisions about energy projects, say a new offshore drilling lease or a pipeline permit, go through a process: an agency studies the impacts, there’s public comment, maybe court challenges. What this Energy Dominance Council does is bring those decisions into a political war room. It puts top officials from all relevant agencies at one table, likely with industry lobbyists whispering in their ears, and pressures everyone to “streamline” approvals. The order explicitly tells the council to find ways to speed up permits and “reduce regulatory burdens” on energy infrastructure.
If that sounds dry, consider what it really means. Imagine an oil company wants to drill near your community or a mining company wants to tear up land near your town. Normally, you have some chance to weigh in or point to environmental rules that protect your water or air. Under an “energy dominance” regime, Washington is telling agencies their top priority is to get to “yes” on these projects, fast. There’s a real risk that legitimate environmental concerns, maybe that the drilling could contaminate your groundwater, or that mining could destroy a sacred landscape, will get steamrolled in the rush.
Legally, I worry that this council further erodes checks and balances. Independent experts in agencies could be sidelined by political appointees whose goal is to please the president. By centralizing power in the Executive Office of the President, Trump skirts much of the transparency and accountability that usually come with agency decision-making. Council meetings and decisions might happen behind closed doors, meaning deals could be cut out of public view. For a democracy, that’s troubling. It’s one more move toward a government that serves a narrow special interest (in this case, fossil fuel companies) rather than the public.
Protecting American Energy From State Overreach (Executive Order 14260, April 8, 2025)
Perhaps the most shocking move to me as a lawyer came in April, when President Trump signed this order, which I’d frankly call the “declare war on state climate laws” order. In Executive Order 14260, Trump directs the Justice Department to go after states and cities that have enacted their own climate and clean energy policies. He literally orders the Attorney General to “stop the enforcement” of any state laws related to climate change that the administration deems unconstitutional or interfering with federal energy policy.
What kinds of state laws are we talking about? The order explicitly targets things like California’s cap-and-trade program (an ambitious plan to cut emissions) and the “climate superfund” laws in places like New York and Vermont (which require fossil fuel companies to pay for some of the damage caused by climate change). It also aims to quash the wave of lawsuits that many states and cities, mostly led by Democrats, have filed against oil companies for climate-related damages like rising sea levels and wildfires. In Trump’s view, all these local efforts are obstacles to “energy dominance.” His administration argues that by setting stricter rules or trying to hold polluters accountable, these states are somehow overstepping their authority. And so, the federal government should step in and stop them.
This is a stunning role reversal. Historically, the Republican Party championed states’ rights. Here we have a Republican president telling states like California and New York, “You have no right to chart your own clean energy future or to protect your citizens from climate harms.” He’s essentially nullifying the will of those states’ voters and their elected leaders, who chose to act on climate because Washington wouldn’t. If you live in a state that wants to transition to 100% clean electricity or to sue Exxon for climate costs, Trump is saying your state can’t do it, or he’ll see you in court.
From a constitutional perspective, this order is on very shaky ground. States have broad authority under the Tenth Amendment to legislate for the health and welfare of their residents. Unless a state law directly conflicts with a specific federal law, states can often go above and beyond federal standards.
There is no federal law, for example, that says “thou must allow unlimited carbon pollution.” So it’s hard to see how California’s emissions rules or Vermont’s climate liability law are “unconstitutional” or “preempted.” In fact, this order sets up a fight pitting federal power against state sovereignty. As someone who cherishes our federalist system, where states can be laboratories of democracy, I find it appalling that the administration wants to snuff that out, especially on an issue as urgent as climate change.
Practically, halting these state climate initiatives will harm Americans. These policies weren’t enacted on a whim; they exist because climate change is already battering communities with wildfires, floods, and heatwaves, and people demanded action when the federal government failed to provide it.
If Trump succeeds in kneecapping state climate laws, who pays the price? Not the oil executives laughing all the way to the bank, but regular people: families who will breathe dirtier air if state clean energy programs are struck down, or taxpayers who’ll foot the disaster-recovery bills if oil companies escape paying their fair share for climate damages. It’s an assault on the principle of local control, and on public health and common sense.
Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry (Executive Order 14261, April 8, 2025)
On the same day as the state preemption order, President Trump also doubled down on his affection for coal, that famously dirty 19th-century fuel that he still insists is part of America’s future. Executive Order 14261 is an all-out push to prop up coal mining and coal-fired power plants. The flowery title might make you think there’s some new technology making coal magically non-polluting, but no, this is mostly about using government muscle to try to make coal more economically viable, despite the energy market largely moving on from coal.
What does this coal order do? First, it declares that coal is essential to national security and directs agencies to remove any “federal regulatory barriers” hindering coal production. It tells the Interior Department to acknowledge the end of any moratorium on leasing federal land for coal mining and to start prioritizing new coal leases. (For context, new coal leasing on public lands had been slowed or paused in recent years out of concern for climate impacts and because existing coal mines already supply more than the demand.) The order also tasks officials with identifying where all the big coal deposits on federal land are and figuring out how to mine them faster, even using “emergency” powers if necessary to speed up permits and environmental reviews.
In a particularly odd twist, Trump’s order directs the Energy Secretary to determine whether a type of coal used in steelmaking (metallurgical coal) should be classified as a “critical mineral.” Why does that matter? Because if coal is labeled a critical mineral for national security, the government can invoke special authorities to subsidize it and boost production, treating it like a material we can’t live without. It’s a creative way to funnel support to coal companies, basically putting coal in the same basket as rare earth metals or other materials crucial for high-tech defense systems, which is a stretch, to say the least.
Let’s be clear: the decline of coal in America isn’t due simply to onerous regulations, it’s largely because other fuels became cheaper and cleaner. Natural gas and renewable power undercut coal on cost, and old coal plants are expensive to maintain. What Trump is doing is tilting the scales to favor coal again, perhaps by forcing taxpayers to subsidize it or by rolling back pollution standards so that aging coal plants can run longer without required upgrades.
That might temporarily benefit a coal mine owner here or a power plant there, and it certainly pleases coal industry lobbyists. But it directly harms public health and the environment. Burning coal releases more carbon dioxide than any other common fuel, accelerating climate change. It also emits mercury, sulfur dioxide, and soot that contribute to asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths. There’s nothing “clean” about traditional coal-burning (unless you count the word in the title of the order).
Moreover, trying to revive coal in 2025 is like investing in typewriters in the age of smartphones. It ignores the global pivot to cleaner energy. Our international competitors are moving forward with advanced energy technologies while we are talking about digging up and burning more coal. And guess who often bears the brunt when coal production ramps up? Communities in Appalachia and Wyoming where mining happens, who have suffered boom-and-bust economic cycles and health problems for generations, and downwind communities that get blanketed in coal pollution. Those regions need real economic diversification and support, not a political promise to bring back an era that’s ending.
From a legal standpoint, parts of this coal push, like ending the coal leasing moratorium, will likely be challenged. When the Obama administration paused coal leases, it was because the government hadn’t fully accounted for climate costs; simply ignoring that and rushing into new leases may violate NEPA or other laws requiring rational decision-making. But whether or not courts slow it down, the bigger question is why our government is expending so much effort on a policy that moves us backward. The answer seems to be political symbolism and loyalty to a few coal barons, because it’s certainly not in the interest of most Americans to increase pollution or bet on an uncompetitive energy source.
Gutting Environmental Law and Silencing Communities
Threaded through many of these executive orders is a common theme beyond just promoting fossil fuels: chipping away at fundamental environmental laws and processes that ensure the government listens to the public and uses facts. A prime target is the National Environmental Policy Act.
NEPA has been around for over 50 years, and it basically says that before the federal government undertakes a major project, building a highway, approving a drilling lease, etc. – it has to study the environmental impacts, consider alternatives, and let the public have a say. It’s a cornerstone of informed decision-making and often the tool local communities use to voice concerns about projects that could affect their backyards.
Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” order took direct aim at NEPA. It revoked a Carter-era executive order that had strengthened NEPA’s implementation and ordered the Council on Environmental Quality to overhaul its regulations to “expedite and simplify” environmental reviews. In plain English, Trump is telling agencies to shorten or skip environmental impact studies and hurry up with permits. One section even says agencies should use “all possible authorities, including emergency authorities” to speed up permits for any project an agency head deems essential for the economy or national security.
Think about that: a massive pipeline or a huge highway project could be declared “essential,” and normal environmental review could be curtailed by calling it an emergency. It’s a recipe for pushing through controversial projects without fully considering their consequences.
If you remove careful review, you get mistakes and disasters: oil spills that weren’t anticipated, communities encircled by freeways without adequate pollution mitigation, endangered species wiped out because nobody had to look. NEPA doesn’t mandate a project be stopped, it just mandates we think before we act. Stripping that away is like blinding our government’s environmental conscience.
It also effectively mutes the public’s voice. Many communities, especially smaller or less powerful ones, rely on the NEPA process to be heard, to say “this factory will poison our air” or “this pipeline threatens our water.” If those voices are sidelined as “delay,” then decisions will be made solely on the basis of what’s easiest for industry.
Similarly, Trump’s orders are removing climate change from the equation. By disbanding the interagency group that calculated the social cost of carbon and forbidding the use of its work, the administration is telling agencies to pretend the damage from greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t exist or can’t be quantified. It’s willful ignorance.
That means when, say, the Department of Transportation evaluates new car efficiency standards, it might ignore how much carbon dioxide those cars will emit and the cost of the climate impacts. Policy made in a fantasy world where carbon has no cost will be deeply flawed, and we’ll all pay the price later in real dollars and real disasters.
The administration also scrapped initiatives focused on environmental justice. It canceled the “Justice40” effort that aimed to direct 40% of certain federal investments to disadvantaged communities hit hardest by pollution and climate change. It terminated the nascent American Climate Corps that was gearing up to train young people for climate-resilience jobs.
These might sound like bureaucratic shifts, but to vulnerable communities and hopeful young workers, it’s the rug being pulled out. If you live near a refinery or a power plant, the federal government is essentially saying it’s not interested in devoting extra resources to help with the disproportionate burden you carry. If you were excited about a job installing solar panels or restoring wetlands, that opportunity just got dimmer. Meanwhile, the message to oil, gas, and coal companies is that the doors are wide open, come on in, do as you please, and don’t worry about those pesky “frontline” communities or climate considerations.
Threats to the Rule of Law
As an attorney, I can’t help but see major courtroom battles brewing over these moves. And I’m glad that’s going to happen. Some of Trump’s executive orders read as if nobody told him that presidents are bound by laws and the Constitution.
For instance, his attempt to impound funds (like pausing the disbursement of money Congress allocated for clean energy) harks back to fights in the 1970s when Congress explicitly barred such behavior. If agencies truly freeze those programs, expect lawsuits arguing that the executive branch is violating the law by ignoring Congress’s mandate.
Likewise, ordering the Justice Department to bulldoze state laws is sure to prompt a constitutional showdown. States like California have already made clear they will defend their authority vigorously. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a coalition of states suing the federal government to stop the DOJ from interfering with state climate policies.
It’s unusual to see the feds and states so directly at odds on environmental policy, and the courts will have to referee whether Trump’s broad claim of preemptive power can override states’ rights. Given legal precedent, there’s a strong chance that parts of that order will be struck down as federal overreach.
Environmental groups, too, are mobilizing. Within hours of the coal order, for example, organizations were decrying it and examining legal options, perhaps to challenge the lack of a factual basis for declaring coal “critical,” or to sue if agencies issue coal leases without proper environmental review. Much of what these executive orders set in motion will play out in specific agency decisions (like a lease sale here, a permit approval there), and that’s where the lawsuits will hit, arguing that the administration violated procedural laws or acted arbitrarily by ignoring evidence of harm. In other words, the battle for America’s environmental soul is moving to the courts, and it will be a grinding fight case by case.
Legal resistance is important, it can slow down or block the worst abuses, but we shouldn’t have to pin our hopes on judges to protect our air and water. It’s frustrating and telling that while most Americans want the government to do more on climate and environment, we have to watch the government do less and then hope the judicial branch intervenes. It’s a waste of time we don’t have, and a diversion of energy and resources that could be spent actually solving problems.
The Stakes for Our Future
I’ve thrown a lot of policy and legal talk out there, but at its core this is about our shared values and future. President Trump’s flurry of environmental rollbacks in 2025 isn’t just some D.C. tug-of-war, these decisions affect all of us, including our children and grandchildren.
They affect whether your electric utility invests in renewables or sticks with dirty coal (which could make your air harder to breathe). They affect whether your state can implement the climate solutions you voted for or whether Washington will try to veto your community’s choices. They affect whether your kids will inherit a world where we at least tried to tackle climate change, or one where we gave up and let corporate polluters dictate the terms.
Consider the contrast: On one side, scientists warn that we need to dramatically cut emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, and entrepreneurs are pushing exciting new clean technologies that can create jobs. On the other side, our president in 2025 is actively encouraging more oil, more coal, and more pollution, as if ignoring the warnings will make them go away. He’s not just ignoring science; he’s undermining the very tools and partnerships that we need to address the crisis, both at home (NEPA, state innovation) and abroad (the Paris Agreement).
There’s also a deep issue of democracy here. Environmental protection might not seem directly related to the health of our republic, but Trump’s actions reveal an approach that undermines democratic norms. When you silence local voices in the permitting process, when you try to squash state laws you don’t like, when you effectively serve the interests of polluting industries over the public interest, you corrode the idea of government by the people, for the people.
Who asked for these rollbacks? Did the American public clamor for dirtier air and more mining waste? Not that I’ve heard. These moves seem to fulfill the wish lists of a few powerful fossil fuel executives. That’s not “putting America first” – it’s putting polluters first, and it leaves the rest of us behind.
As an American and a lawyer, I’m concerned, but I refuse to lose hope. The story of environmental progress in this country has never been a straight line, but ultimately the arc bends toward greater protection because people demand it. In the 1970s, after witnessing oil spills and rivers catching fire, Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass foundational environmental laws. In recent years, a new generation has risen, demanding climate action and justice, and we’ve seen states, cities, and businesses innovate where Washington faltered. That spirit isn’t gone. If anything, Trump’s actions are a wake-up call.
They remind us that elections have consequences, enormous ones. Policies can be changed overnight with the stroke of a pen, as we see now. But the climate crisis won’t wait for us to sort out our politics. Every year lost to backtracking is one we can’t get back. So it’s up to us, the people, to make sure this backtracking is temporary and that we get on the right course again.
I’ll do my part in the courtroom and as a private mediator, to uphold the rule of law and defend environmental safeguards. But it can’t stop there. Citizens need to speak out, at town halls, in letters to editors, and ultimately at the ballot box. We need to support leaders (of any party) who have the courage to face reality and the vision to protect our natural heritage and lead in a clean economy.
President Trump’s 2025 environmental actions have, in a strange way, unified many of us in concern, concerned lawyers, scientists, farmers noticing the droughts, suburban parents worried about their asthmatic kids, coastal residents watching the seas rise. This isn’t about left or right; it’s about right or wrong. It’s wrong to poison our air and water. It’s wrong to leave our kids a degraded planet. And it’s wrong to undermine the democratic processes that give people a say in their own environment.
I believe we can choose a better path. The American people overwhelmingly support clean energy and a healthy environment. Our innovators and businesses are ready to build that future. Our communities are ready to participate and to benefit. What we need is leadership that listens to its people and believes in tomorrow instead of clinging desperately to yesterday.
So yes, I’m alarmed by what’s happening in 2025. But I also know this: Americans have never responded well to being told to sit down and be quiet when something we love is at stake. And our environment, this good earth we share, and the hopes we hold for our children, is very much at stake. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to stand up, speak out, and turn this ship around. Our democracy, our health, and our planet demand nothing less.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Related
How Trump’s 2025 Agenda Destroys the Earth — and U.S. Business
Your Home, Your Job, Your Future: Why the Climate Crisis Is Now America's Biggest Economic Threat
Related Podcast Episode
Listen to the conversation here.
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 my work and message resonates with you,— today’s a great day to take the leap.
It’s also a unique gift to a family member or friend who is interested in this kind of commentary on breaking political news and democracy.
At just $5 a month. $50 a year. It’s a small investment in something bigger than all of us.
