Trump and California Are Set To Duke It Out Over Environmental Policy Again

During Trump's first term, California filed numerous lawsuits seeking to halt deregulation.

California was one of President Donald Trump's largest foes during his first term; the state sued his administration over 120 times. Lawsuits from the Golden State impeded several of Trump's deregulatory moves, including attempts to curb regulations regarding methane emissions from landfills and fracking on federal lands.

Then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra also led a coalition of 22 states in challenging the Trump administration's final rule to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The first significant overhaul of the law in decades, the rule set hard page and time limits for completing an environmental review and was designed to streamline permitting in the United States. While the lawsuit did not reverse the rule, the NEPA modernization was ultimately rescinded when President Joe Biden took office.

With Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom calling on the state Legislature to create a $25 million reserve account for litigation, California is ready to play spoiler again. This could spell trouble for Trump's goals to increase oil and gas drilling on federal land, roll back Biden-era pollution controls at fossil fuel power plants, and reverse stringent greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration could also hamstring many of Newsom's climate change and clean energy projects by clawing back federal funding for subsidies and slow-walking approval for some of the state's clean air initiatives. California is the only state currently allowed to set its own air pollution standards for new vehicles, but it must first obtain a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In December, the EPA approved two California waiver requests, including its rule mandating that 100 percent of cars sold in the state be zero emission by 2035. The Trump administration could try to reverse this decision, as it did in 2019 when the EPA rescinded a previously approved waiver that allowed California to implement its own vehicle emissions standards for model year 2022–2025 cars. (Biden reinstated the waiver.)

Repealing California's waiver would have national implications. As of August, 2024, 17 states and the District of Columbia have implemented some subset of California's vehicle emissions standards. These states and California accounted for more than 40 percent of new vehicle sales in 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service.

A second round of Trump vs. California will have significant impacts on taxpayers—Californians alone paid $42 million for Trump-related litigation from 2017 to 2022—and businesses, which have to stay in compliance even as regulatory standards ping-pong from administration to administration. Trump's second term provides Congress an opportunity to stop this chaos by implementing stable regulations that shrink the size of government and allow the private sector to meet the country's economic and environmental needs.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

So California is against choice?

Have any of them asked why no one has ever manufactured an automobile powered by nuclear fission?

[mad.casual]

California was one of President Donald Trump's largest foes during his first term; the state sued his administration over 120 times. Lawsuits from the Golden State impeded several of Trump's deregulatory moves, including attempts to curb regulations regarding methane emissions from landfills and fracking on federal lands.

Worst. Hitler. Ever.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Are bees still fish in Cali?

[Eeyore]

Yes

[JohnZ]

If they are labeled as smelt.

[Uncle Jay]

Yes, and they're a protected species in CA too.

[Brandybuck]

The power to deregulate is also the power to regulate. When that power is in the hands of a single human being, it's too much power.

Sure, deregulation is great. But what's to prevent the next president from bringing it all back in spades? Nothing. Because we now have monarchical presidency who can do whatever he wants.

Yes, it's the executive branch that implements regulations. But that does not mean there are zero checks on balances. Any modern state is going to need a civil service of some sort. And that means some kind of bureaucracy. A necessary evil because no single human being, not even one Blessed by God, can effectively run an autocratic state. To think otherwise is just not rational.

Let's do deregulation right. Let's have states rights and federalism. Let's not hand all this immense autocratic power to the next president.

[Rossami]

So write your congresscritter and tell him/her to make Trump's deregulations permanent.

By the way, it's Congress that serves as the check and balance on the executive branch, not the civil service. Also the judiciary and the states but very much not the civil service that reports to the very president you claim to want to hold in check.

[mad.casual]

Also the judiciary and the states but very much not the civil service that reports to the very president you claim to want to hold in check.

And nominally, ideologically, The People above that. There is no malicious compliance that isn't malice against The Republic, you're free not to serve.

This is actually a/the fairly critical distinction between Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""The power to deregulate is also the power to regulate. When that power is in the hands of a single human being, it's too much power.""

Maybe, just maybe, Congress should quit giving so much power to the agencies under the executive.

[Thoritsu]

So you get a Libertarian gift, and shit on the hand? You should be a Reason writer! You probably had issue with the Chevron reversal too.

Sure, take Federal power away. Like to see your genius method to get that done, separately from the federal government giving it away voluntarily. States can do whatever doesn't step on the Constitution, which they do all the time and dare SCOTUS to do anything about it.

[Public Entelectual]

If Kamala Harris were still Attorney General of California that bear would be arrested for not having boxing gloves and wearing fur in public.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

This is what happens when bears get out of Jeff's trunk..

[MWAocdoc]

"Trump's second term provides Congress an opportunity to stop this chaos by implementing stable regulations that shrink the size of government and allow the private sector to meet the country's economic and environmental needs."

But they won't. The Federal government should not HAVE any federal lands in the first place. The country does not have any "environmental needs," and the Federal government should not be regulating oil drilling or emissions at all.

[JohnZ]

Well now, we've all been witness to how well the environmental regulations and how that has worked out for the people of California, especially those in and around Los Angeles. Yesiree, they saved a tiny fish but allowed thousands of homes to burn down and destroy the state's economy.
There is no limit to stupid and the people of California prove it every day. Anyone who believes these events will change their voting habits is in for a big surprise, ....it won't. They will vote for and elect Harris and vote to maintain the same stupid environmental ideology that got them to this point.
Let's see how they feel when the other half of L.A. is burned to the ground.

[charliehall]

Environmental regulations made the air in Los Angeles breathable. And the purpose of the huge water system the state and federal government built wasn't to fight fires but to provide subsidized irrigation water to farmers. But a year from now the water will be available for firefighting because Trump has promised to put all the farmers out of business by deporting their workforces.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""they saved a tiny fish but allowed thousands of homes to burn down and destroy the state's economy.""

Liberals are bad at thinking things through.

[Uncle Jay]

Yeah, logic, facts and commonsense always confuse and anger leftists here in the US.

[charliehall]

It is only because of liberals that there are water systems in California at all. Libertarians would have stifled Los Angeles' growth at maybe 1/10 of its current size because of the lack of water. And there would be no farms in the southern part of the Central Valley as they depend on massively subsidized irrigation water provided by the state and federal governments.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""Libertarians would have stifled Los Angeles' growth at maybe 1/10 of its current size because of the lack of water.""

And less people would have lost their homes due fire?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Let's see them build a railway.

[mad.casual]

Liberals are bad at thinking things through.

The first idea I heard as part of the rebuilding effort after the fires was the idea to build higher-density buildings in order to fit more people in the same space to help drive housing costs down.

Practically staring at a city-sized pile of still-smoldering rubble and thinking "How could we fit more people in there?" out loud.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

The vast majority of the federal government should be returned to the individual states. This would allow california to descend into a sinkhole of regulation of their own making without forcing more reasonable states to go with them.

I'm all for drastically reducing the federal government and forcing the states to compete with each other for citizens. While california has a nice weather climate and visuals, I'm no longer willing to live in california and is nothing like the early 80's when I lived there.

While I may visit from time to time, I also have visited disaster zones around the globe to lend a hand and spend some dollars to help the area out. With california, it is not a natural disaster, but a disaster orchestrated by a single party of leftists. If california had some reasonable old school democrats there might be some redeeming possible, but reasonable democrats have fled the state to the point that only the wackos remain.

[Uncle Jay]

"The vast majority of the federal government should be returned to the individual states."

You're exactly right.
Give all the national parks to the states where they are located.
Let the states handle their own environmental issues regardless of how good or bad they are.
Plus, you would save the taxpayers billions in federal taxes.

[See.More]

California is like granola. When you remove all the fruits and nuts, you're left with nothing but flakes.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

If government must set standards (and as a Libertarian, I hope and dream that they don't), there needs to be one standard. Otherwise, California can opt out of the US standard, Orange County can opt out of California's standard, Huntington Beach can opt out of Orange County's standard, and then some HOA down the road can opt out of Huntington Beach's standard,.

[charliehall]

Los Angeles is livable today because California was able to set its own emissions standards. Its unusual geography made it one of the most polluted cities in the world.

But it is interesting that you seem to think that I should be able to build a toxic waste incinerator next to your home and blow the poisonous fumes into your house. Standards are there to prevent that.

[charliehall]

"trouble for Trump's goals to increase oil and gas drilling on federal land"

This is designed to set up someone to blame when Trump's goals aren't met. The real reason he isn't going to increase oil and gas drilling on federal land is that oil and gas companies aren't interested in drilling on federal land. The only place they seem to want to drill extensively is the Permian Basin, in Texas and New Mexico, which is mostly on state or private land. Biden had an oil lease sale in Alaska that attracted zero private sector bidders. The state of Alaska actually bought some of the leases (Socialism to the rescue!) but couldn't even find a contractor willing to drill.

[AT]

The answer is here is obvious.

California is kicked out of the union, Gay North Dakota becomes the new 50th State. This will prevent an immediate need to change the flag.

Then we kick out Hawaii. Because lol. Relocate all the Hawaiians to Guam or Samoa or Baker Island or wherever who cares even slightly, and the islands become a permanent military base.

Then we invade California, kill anyone who opposes us (including anyone in Washington and Oregon west of I-5), raze all their pagan shrines to the ground, rename it Americaville, and make it the 50th State. Again, we don't need to change the flag.

Then we buy Greenland and rename it Parka-Necessary America, essentially turn the whole place into half military base half gulag, and update the flag. Then conquer Mexico, and rename it Not Quite As Good And Kinda Smelly America, exempt them from any Constitutional protections until the drug cartels are exterminated, and update the flag.

In the meantime, invade Cuba and turn over everything of value there to classic car collectors, and soak Haiti in napalm then give it to DR with a "you're welcome" note.

We could accomplish most, if not all this, before 2036.

[mad.casual]

"Thanks for not being PR, and you're welcome" note.

[AT]

PR we just keep stringing along indefinitely with empty promises of statehood that we'll never give them because that's HI-LARIOUS.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

If they have money to spend on litigation, they clearly don't need any handouts from the Federal government.

[TJJ2000]

CA weaponizing the Judiciary against 'democracy'???
Where did Democrats 'democracy' flag-ship disappear to all-of the sudden?

They don't even have a Constitutional case. There is no Enumerated Power for Environmental Protection. So literally all they have is a "War against Trump, Republicans and the USA".

F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].