The Trump administration is launching a sweeping effort to roll back decades of environmental regulations, targeting air quality standards and emissions rules, as well as climate policies that have governed U.S. industries.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under administrator Lee Zeldin, is reconsidering dozens of regulations, including the 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health, which underpins current climate policies.
Other targets include air pollution limits, rules restricting coal ash contamination, and Biden-era vehicle emissions standards aimed at boosting electric and hybrid car adoption.
Environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers vow legal challenges, warning that these rollbacks could have severe health and climate consequences.
Key quote:
Reconsideration of the endangerment finding “is a despicable betrayal of the American people…[it] will have swift and catastrophic ramifications for the environment and health of all Americans.”
— Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), House Energy and Commerce Committee
Why this matters:
The Trump administration’s latest EPA overhaul is a gut punch to decades of environmental safeguards, and a significant step toward completely redefining the purpose of the agency. Under Zeldin, the Trump administration’s EPA is taking a wrecking ball to emissions rules, air quality protections, and even the legal backbone of U.S. climate policy. If they succeed, they won’t just be unraveling Biden-era policies — they’ll be reaching back to undo the fundamental science-based regulations that have supported public health by keeping air and water cleaner for decades.
Since Donald Trump returned to office, thousands of federal climate and environmental data sets have been deleted or altered, raising concerns about transparency and public access to critical information.
Around 2,000 records have disappeared from Data.gov since January, including tools tracking climate risks and environmental justice concerns.
The Biden-era Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and the EPA’s EJScreen were quickly removed, but researchers managed to preserve copies.
Legal challenges are emerging, with groups suing federal agencies to restore missing public health and climate resources.
Key quote:
“When you start taking down this information, changing how issues are described and doing so in misleading ways, really, what it is, is censorship and propaganda.”
— Eric Nost, geographer, University of Guelph
Why this matters:
The restriction of public access to government environmental data has far-reaching consequences, affecting scientists, policymakers, and communities alike. Without open access to records on pollution levels, climate trends, and public health risks, it becomes much harder to track environmental hazards and plan for their impacts.
For marginalized communities — often the most vulnerable to pollution and climate change — the loss of accessible data makes it more difficult to advocate for protections and hold industries or agencies accountable. While some information may still exist within government databases, the reduction of public availability raises concerns about transparency and oversight. Scientists warn that limiting access to climate and pollution data could slow research and policy efforts aimed at addressing environmental crises. Meanwhile, environmental advocates argue that such moves undermine the public’s right to know about risks that affect air, water, and overall well-being.
The Environmental Protection Agency has revoked $20 billion in climate grants issued under the Inflation Reduction Act, escalating a legal fight over the program’s future and the president's authority to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin cited concerns about oversight, fraud, and misalignment with agency priorities as reasons for terminating the grants, though no specific cases of fraud were identified.
The decision affects multiple recipients, including Climate United Fund, which has sued to access funds held in a Citibank account that the Trump administration froze.
Democratic lawmakers argue the move is politically motivated and undermines a congressionally authorized program meant to finance clean energy and housing projects.
Key quote:
“Zeldin and Trump are spreading lies in a last-ditch effort to terminate the climate bank because the truth is it will help households save money and deploy clean energy — exactly what Big Oil is afraid of."
— Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts
Why this matters:
The funding cuts in question could have sweeping consequences for climate and clean energy initiatives, particularly those aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and assisting economically disadvantaged communities. Many of these projects, established under the Biden administration, rely on federal grants to support renewable energy development, efficiency upgrades, and pollution reduction efforts.
Beyond the immediate impact on climate programs, the outcome of this legal fight could set a precedent for how future administrations manage federal funds, raising critical questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. For communities and industries that depend on these grants, the uncertainty adds yet another layer of complexity to an already shifting policy landscape.
A third nonprofit has sued Citibank for blocking access to climate funding backed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, intensifying a legal fight over the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back Biden-era green initiatives.
Power Forward Communities, awarded $2 billion through the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, sued Citibank after its accounts were frozen for nearly three weeks.
The bank, which administers $14 billion in green banking funds, has frozen multiple accounts since at least Feb. 18, despite contractual obligations to provide access unless EPA intervenes over fraud or misuse.
The move follows pressure from President Donald Trump and EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who have sought to reclaim climate-related funding, citing political concerns.
Key quote:
“We entered into a contract with the federal government in good faith, and as a result, we have obligations we must meet, and commitments to the American people we intend to keep.”
— Tim Mayopoulos, CEO of Power Forward Communities
Critics see the move as part of a larger pattern in which financial institutions, facing pressure from Republican lawmakers and regulators, are retreating from climate-focused investments. The implications could be far-reaching, potentially undermining future federal climate programs, stalling nonprofit-led renewable energy initiatives, and limiting access to clean energy funding for low-income communities.
A new highway cutting through protected Amazon rainforest is being built in Belém, Brazil, to accommodate traffic for the COP30 climate summit, drawing criticism from conservationists and local communities.
The four-lane highway spans more than eight miles through the Amazon, displacing residents and threatening biodiversity.
Local farmers, like Claudio Verequete, have lost their livelihoods without compensation and fear further deforestation.
Scientists warn the road will fragment ecosystems, making it harder for wildlife to migrate and survive.
Key quote:
"From the moment of deforestation, there is a loss. We are going to lose an area to release these animals back into the wild, the natural environment of these species."
— Prof. Silvia Sardinha, wildlife vet and researcher
Why this matters:
The Amazon rainforest is critical for regulating global carbon levels and sustaining biodiversity. In a paradox that environmentalists find hard to ignore, new infrastructure projects — including roads — are being carved through the forest to accommodate global climate summits.
Deforestation in the Amazon is already a major driver of global carbon emissions, with land cleared primarily for agriculture, logging, and mining. Roads tend to accelerate this process, opening once-remote areas to further degradation. Research shows that up to 95% of deforestation in the Amazon occurs within a few miles of roads, often leading to unchecked expansion of industry, land grabs, and displacement of Indigenous communities.
Uganda’s plan to become an oil exporter through the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has sparked a global battle between economic ambitions and environmental concerns, with Western banks pulling out and activists pressuring insurers to abandon the project.
The nearly 1,000-mile pipeline, backed by TotalEnergies and China’s national oil company, would transport Ugandan oil to an Indian Ocean port but has faced financial hurdles due to activist pressure.
Environmental groups argue the project will displace communities, harm wildlife, and exacerbate climate change, while Uganda insists it is a critical economic opportunity.
Uganda is now seeking financing from China and the Middle East, as Western banks and insurers withdraw under pressure from climate activists.
Key quote:
““The people who lecture us — they’ve been exploiting their resources for 100 years. So when I find a person in New York who grew up with power, has a refrigerator, and he says ‘Stop EACOP,’ to me, he’s telling my 45 million brothers that they can continue reading with a candle.”
— Ali Ssekatawa, lawyer for Uganda’s Petroleum Authority
Why this matters:
The pipeline embodies a broader dilemma: Developing nations seek to harness their natural resources for economic growth, while climate activists warn of catastrophic local and global consequences from the continuation of exploitative fossil fuel resource extraction. Uganda argues that wealthy nations have long profited from fossil fuels and should not block Africa’s chance at prosperity. Activists counter that projects like this accelerate climate change and disproportionately harm the world’s poorest. The debate exposes deep divisions over who bears responsibility for the energy transition — and who pays the price.
Efforts to secure federal funding for climate adaptation at military bases in Northern Virginia are at risk as the Trump administration moves to cut spending on climate-related projects.
The Northern Virginia Regional Commission previously received $2.4 million from the Department of Defense for climate resilience planning at military sites, including Fort Belvoir and Quantico.
A third phase of funding, which could address energy demands and infrastructure improvements, is now uncertain due to federal budget cuts.
Rising sea levels and extreme rainfall threaten military readiness, with data showing increasing erosion and flood risks at key bases.
Key quote:
“Improvements to master planning and to infrastructure planning and design are recognized as vital for reducing current and future vulnerability to climate hazards to installations, missions, and operations worldwide.”
— 2021 Department of Defense report
Why this matters:
Military bases are already experiencing the effects of climate change, from flooding to power grid strain. Without continued funding, critical infrastructure upgrades could stall, affecting military operations and local economies. The Pentagon has long recognized climate change as a "threat multiplier," amplifying risks to national security. Northern Virginia’s military installations are particularly vulnerable due to their coastal location and growing energy demands. The potential funding cuts reflect broader federal efforts to reduce climate-related spending, raising questions about how the military will adapt to worsening environmental conditions.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
www.eenews.net
