A new directive from the Interior Department will cut environmental reviews for drilling and mining projects on public lands from years to weeks, citing an emergency order from President Trump.
The Interior Department announced it will reduce environmental reviews for oil, gas, coal, and mineral projects to as little as 14 days, citing President Trump’s energy emergency order.
The order claims emergency authority under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, though critics say the U.S. has no genuine energy emergency and already leads the world in oil and gas production.
Environmental groups argue the move silences public input and undermines legal protections, and they have promised legal challenges.
Key quote:
“This is manifestly illegal if for no other reason than this is all a fake emergency. We’ll be in court, and we will challenge it.”
— Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Federal environmental reviews are the last line of defense against unchecked industrial development on public lands and waters, ensuring projects don’t destroy wildlife habitat, pollute water, or bulldoze cultural sites before the public can weigh in. The Trump administration’s decision to bypass these protections under the guise of an emergency opens vast swaths of land — many ecologically or culturally sensitive — to fossil fuel extraction with minimal oversight. That could fast-track air and water pollution. Public comment periods often bring to light overlooked risks; eliminating that input increases the chances of long-term harm. Critics also say invoking emergency powers for non-emergency purposes sets a dangerous precedent that erodes environmental law and democratic processes.
Get the best positive, solutions-oriented stories we've seen on the intersection of our health and environment, FREE every Tuesday in your inbox. Subscribe here today. Keep the change tomorrow.
A growing gender gap among environmental voters reveals women, especially women of color, are increasingly prioritizing climate issues at the ballot box.
A new analysis by the Environmental Voter Project found that 62% of voters likely to prioritize climate issues are women, with the widest gender gaps among young voters and communities of color.
The gap has grown over time, from 20 percentage points in 2019 to 25 in 2025, raising questions about whether men’s political focus is shifting away from environmental issues.
Experts suggest that disproportionate exposure to climate-related hardships, like housing instability and pollution, may be pushing more women, especially mothers and caregivers, to act politically.
Key quote:
“Black women often carry the weight of protecting their families and communities. They’re the ones navigating things like school closures and skyrocketing bills; they are the ones seeing the direct impacts of these things. It is a kitchen table issue.”
— Jasmine Gil, associate senior director at Hip Hop Caucus
Why this matters:
The gender divide in environmental concern reflects deeper, lived realities of who bears the brunt of climate change. Women, particularly women of color, are more likely to live in lower-income communities that face increased exposure to pollution, extreme weather, and failing infrastructure. They’re also more likely to be caregivers, meaning the ripple effects of climate disasters land heavily on their shoulders and manifest in everyday concerns like health, housing, food, and safety. The growing gender gap suggests men and women are experiencing the climate crisis differently, or at least prioritizing it differently.
A year after devastating floods swept Vermont, new science is strengthening state-level efforts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for climate-driven destruction.
Vermont passed the first U.S. law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for climate damages, a model now spreading to other states like New York and Massachusetts.
A new Nature study introduces a refined model of attribution science that connects emissions from individual companies to economic losses from climate events, such as heat waves.
Chevron alone may be responsible for $3.6 trillion in global GDP losses due to heat-related impacts, though the company disputes the study’s scientific basis and claims the legal approach is unconstitutional.
Key quote:
“We believe in openly transparent science, especially since the work was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.”
— Justin Mankin, geography professor at Dartmouth College and an author of the Nature paper
Why this matters:
Climate change lawsuits are multiplying, and attribution science is rapidly evolving to meet the legal and moral demands of a warming world. For years, scientists could point to fossil fuel emissions as a global problem, but couldn’t say which polluter caused which storm, fire, or drought. That’s changing. The new generation of models can link specific oil and gas companies to billions — sometimes trillions — of dollars in climate damages. And states like Vermont are ready to use that information to recover funds. As science gets better at assigning blame, pressure grows on governments and courts to act. And as state-level laws push forward in defiance of federal resistance, the political and legal fights over who should pay for climate change are just beginning to intensify.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to freeze and terminate $20 billion in climate grants awarded during the Biden era, despite internal legal warnings that the move carries significant risk of triggering massive financial liabilities.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has worked to block eight nonprofit groups from spending Biden-era climate funds already distributed, even though agency lawyers warned this could expose the government to billions in damages.
Internal emails show government attorneys prioritized freezing the money before securing proof of wrongdoing, launching investigations afterward in hopes of justifying the move.
A federal judge has ruled that EPA’s termination of the grants violated legal procedures, and litigation is ongoing as the administration tries to shift the case to a court where damages could be limited.
Key quote:
“It just seems to me that this is end-justifies-the-means logic, that there’s no evidence that’s being cited.”
— Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether fuel companies can challenge California’s clean vehicle standards, a case that could undermine the state’s authority to limit car emissions.
The court is reviewing whether fuel producers have standing to sue over California’s emissions rule, not the legality of the rule itself.
Some justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, questioned why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn’t initially oppose the lawsuit on procedural grounds, suggesting a potential openness to reviving the case.
If the case is revived, lower courts would reassess it, potentially affecting California's current and future emissions policies.
Key quote:
“Isn’t that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there’s even — even a hint of a question about it.”
— Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Why this matters:
California’s clean car rules are among the most aggressive climate policies in the U.S., setting standards that other states often follow. These regulations, which include a gradual phase-out of gas-powered cars, aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in a state plagued by vehicle pollution. But the pushback from fuel producers reflects broader tensions between federal authority, state environmental ambition, and the fossil fuel industry’s economic interests. A ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed could slow or weaken similar initiatives nationwide, emboldening legal challenges to local environmental efforts. The case also comes as climate scientists warn that transportation emissions must fall sharply to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
More than a decade after a catastrophic refinery fire sickened thousands, California regulators are weighing a rollback of key safety reforms under a legal settlement with oil lobbyists.
A secretive legal settlement between California officials and the Western States Petroleum Association could roll back safety rules enacted after the 2012 Chevron refinery fire in Richmond, which sent 15,000 people to hospitals and triggered landmark reforms.
The proposed changes would narrow definitions of hazardous materials, reduce union influence in safety meetings, and limit workers' power to stop unsafe operations, sparking backlash from labor and environmental groups left out of the negotiations.
Critics warn that the changes arrive amid ongoing accidents and refinery closures, raising concerns about worker safety, community exposure, and weakened oversight just as the state moves toward phasing out fossil fuels.
Key quote:
“They’re taking the guts out of the regulation … This is happening at the same time as the industry is divesting from its refining assets and the combination of those two things is a ticking time bomb.”
— Greg Karras, independent consulting scientist at Community Energy reSource
Why this matters:
California’s oil refineries sit near neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals, exposing millions to the threat of fires, toxic plumes, and explosions. The 2012 Chevron fire in Richmond was a wake-up call, prompting some of the strongest refinery safety regulations in the nation. The push to roll them back comes at a precarious moment. As California transitions away from fossil fuels, companies are closing or downsizing refineries, leading to understaffing, overwork, and safety concerns as powerful industry groups continue to wield influence behind closed doors. The proposed rollback narrows the list of chemicals that count as hazardous, redefines when safety plans kick in, and weakens union input. With refineries already under stress and oversight gaps growing, loosening protections risks repeating the tragedies these rules were meant to prevent.
A federal judge ruled that the U.S. government must pay North Dakota nearly $28 million for mishandling its response to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017, citing negligence by the Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor found the federal government at fault for failing to manage land used during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, which led to widespread damage and safety concerns.
The Corps of Engineers was criticized for not enforcing property rules, issuing a misleading press release about a tribal permit, and allowing conditions that escalated the situation.
The court awarded North Dakota $28 million in damages, reduced from its initial $38 million claim due to previous grants and donations related to the protests.
Key quote:
“The damages here were caused by tumultuous, unsanitary, and otherwise horrific conditions that caused significant violence to the land and responding law enforcement officers.”
— Judge Daniel Traynor, U.S. District Court
Why this matters:
The Dakota Access Pipeline protest drew global attention to tribal sovereignty, environmental protection, and the militarization of police. At its core was the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s concern over the pipeline’s path beneath Lake Oahe, a vital water source and sacred site. Nearly a decade later, the federal government faces financial penalties for enabling the camps without clear rules or enforcement. This case illustrates the ongoing conflict between large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure and Indigenous rights. The pipeline continues to operate despite unresolved environmental reviews and lawsuits, raising ongoing fears about water contamination and treaty violations.
