The US Senate voted today to strip California of its authority to enact state limits on tailpipe pollution that are tougher than national standards.

Opponents called it an illegal move by Republican lawmakers that flies in the face of Senate rules and norms.

Senate Republicans went forward with the vote today anyway, revoking waivers that allow California to pursue its climate goals and improve air quality by reducing emissions from cars and trucks. 

Opponents called it an illegal move

“This is the easy way to do what the fossil fuel industry wants,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said on the Senate floor during deliberations that ended past 1AM ET. “They had this quick and dirty, sneaky maneuver that they could pull off so they didn’t have to negotiate, they didn’t have to legislate, and they didn’t have to use regulatory process.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted California waivers to set its own rules for car and truck emissions since the Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970. The standards the state sets for vehicle manufacturers can influence the entire industry because California is one of the biggest car markets in the world. Seventeen states and Washington, DC have also adopted all or part of California’s vehicle emission regulations. 

The EPA had previously issued waivers to California approving its plans to require an increasing number of medium and heavy-duty vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission, and all passenger vehicles sold to be zero-emission by 2035. Taken together, the resolutions passed today attempt to hobble one of the most ambitious plans to tackle climate change in the nation by rescinding those approvals. A third resolution also revokes a waiver the EPA had granted California to limit nitrogen oxide pollution from vehicles. House Republicans passed the measures a few weeks ago. 

“California has used its waiver authority to push its extreme climate policies on the rest of the country,” Sen. Shelley Capito (R-WV) said in closing remarks on the Senate floor last night.

Environmental advocates, meanwhile, argue that GOP lawmakers attacked the state’s rights. “If other states don’t like California’s approach, they don’t need to follow it – but federal lawmakers shouldn’t be intervening to block states from providing cleaner air and a healthier environment,” Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a press statement today.

Both Senate and House Republicans used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to revoke the waivers. The CRA allows Congress to overturn certain new rules with a simple majority vote and avoid a filibuster by the opposing party. But the Senate parliamentarian and Government Accountability Office — nonpartisan watchdogs — have previously found that the waivers aren’t considered recent rules within the parameters of the CRA.

The vote today sends the CRA resolutions to President Donald Trump to sign. Trump unsuccessfully tried to take away California’s authority to set its own tailpipe standards during his first term in office. 

Auto trade groups have opposed California’s plans to require more EV sales. “Disapproval of the rules is essential to ensuring a unified national vehicle marketplace that promotes continued progress on fuel economy while safeguarding economic growth and consumer interests,” Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to senators last week.

House Republicans advanced a sweeping spending package that would roll back Biden-era tax credits for renewable energy projects. If the bill passes the Senate and makes it to President Donald Trump’s desk to sign, it could deal a serious blow to renewables, new nuclear technologies, and clean energy manufacturing across the US. 

The rollbacks would undo much of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which Democrats touted as the biggest investment in climate and clean energy initiatives. Losing these tax credits would slow efforts to build out enough new energy sources to meet rising electricity demand, as well as previous commitments the US has made on the international stage to help stop the climate crisis.

“This package is really economic malpractice,” says Brad Townsend, vice president for policy and outreach at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). The bill that the House ultimately passed was even harsher on clean energy than a draft released last week. “The original version was bad. This version is worse.”

“This package is really economic malpractice.”

Based on the previous draft, C2ES and research firm Greenline Insights estimated that restrictions on which projects would be eligible for tax credits would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost GDP. An updated bill released overnight and passed early this morning could lead to even larger losses if the Senate ultimately passes it as-is.

Notably, the bill stipulates that projects must start construction within 60 days of it being enacted and placed in service by the end of 2028 in order to qualify for clean energy tax credits. 

That would effectively make it impossible for new projects to qualify, given the long lead times needed to secure permits and financing before starting construction. During remarks on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the provision a “clean job kill switch.” 

“It’s one of the most devastating things added at the last minute in this bill snuck in the dark of night. And we in the Senate — and I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in this — are going to fight this every step of the way,” he said.

Nearly 977,000 jobs and $177 billion in GDP would have been lost as a result of requirements in the previous draft that stipulated that projects be placed in service by 2029 to qualify for credits, according to C2ES and Greenline Insights. Again, that draft was less stringent than the text that ultimately passed.

The bill seemingly includes a carveout for nuclear energy industry, to which some GOP members, including Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, have ties. Wright dialed into a meeting with Republican lawmakers on Wednesday night to discuss the tax credits, Politico reported. The bill subsequently says that new nuclear reactors would only have to commence construction by 2028 in order to qualify. But even though the provisions aren’t as strict for new nuclear projects to qualify, the bill still sets unrealistic goals. Next-generation nuclear reactors aren’t expected to be ready to deploy commercially until the 2030s. 

The bill also ends an IRA policy that allowed renewable projects to transfer credits to one another, dealing another economic blow to developers outside of nuclear energy. It disqualifies projects owned by or receiving “material assistance from prohibited foreign entities.” Those restrictions are essentially unworkable, according to clean energy advocates and industry experts — considering that clean energy supply chains are still concentrated in China and that it could bar developers with investors from other countries. Restrictions on the involvement of foreign entities alone could lead to $237 billion in lost GDP, Greenline Insights and C2ES previously estimated.

Ironically, Republican districts stood to benefit the most from IRA incentives for new solar and wind farms and factories. Investments were concentrated in rural areas, and 73 percent of manufacturing facilities for clean power components are in red states, according to a recent industry report from the American Clean Power Association.

“Texas in particular is going to be hammered by the package as written,” Townsend says. His organization’s analysis found that Texas would lose the most jobs — more than 170,000 — from tax credit restrictions initially proposed in the bill.

“Texas in particular is going to be hammered.”

Fortunately, solar and wind power are already cheaper sources of electricity than fossil fuels in many cases and have been making steady gains in the US for decades thanks to falling costs. To be sure, developers now have to contend with new challenges posed by Trump’s tariff regime. But the industry has managed to make progress — now providing more than 20 percent of the US electricity mix — despite years of on-again, off-again credits prior to the IRA codifying incentives in a way that offered more long-term certainty for the industry.

What the tax credits in the IRA were supposed to help accomplish, however, was a dramatic ramp-up of carbon-free energy needed to stop the climate crisis. The IRA was expected to slash US greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent from peak levels by the end of the decade, according to independent analyses. That nearly got the nation to the goal that former President Joe Biden committed to under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was cutting pollution by at least 50 percent by 2030. And since the US is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions historically than any other country, the decisions that Congress makes now have consequences for the planet. 

Trump, of course, has called climate change a hoax despite mountains of evidence showing how emissions from fossil fuels exacerbate floods, storms, droughts, fires, and other climate disasters.

Aside from worsening weather events putting pressure on the US’ aging power grid, the country is also grappling with a sudden rise in electricity demand from new AI data centers, crypto mining, electric vehicles, and increased domestic manufacturing. Electricity demand could grow by 25 percent by 2030, according to one forecast published this week by consulting firm ICF. By slowing the deployment of clean energy, the repeal of IRA incentives would lead to more pollution and raise household energy costs by up to 7 percent by 2035, according to a recent analysis by research firm Rhodium Group.

The Senate now has to wrangle with the entirety of Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful bill.” It also includes proposals to extend and expand income tax cuts, increase military spending, fund mass deportations, impose new restrictions on Medicaid and food assistance programs, and more. Even though the Republican-controlled Senate is likely to fall in line with Trump’s agenda, there’s still time for proposals in the bill to evolve.

In its current version, “Americans’ electric bills will soar. Hundreds of factories will close. Hundreds of billions of dollars in local investments will vanish. Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), said in a press statement. But, Hopper added, “it’s not too late for Congress to get this right. The solar and [energy] storage industry is ready to get to work with the US Senate on a more thoughtful and measured approach.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to gut 12 energy efficiency standards could cost Americans billions of dollars in higher electricity bills. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it plans to rollback dozens of policies in what it called its “largest deregulatory effort in history.” While the DOE claims that getting rid of “burdensome and costly” rules would save $11 billion, that doesn’t take into account the costs Americans would bear if they have to use more energy-hungry appliances. 

Adding up those costs, the deregulation spree would ultimately lead to about $43 billion in higher electricity bills for households and businesses, according to an analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) that was first shared with The Verge. 

“The department is looking at the savings these rollbacks would provide while completely ignoring the costs.”

“The department is looking at the savings these rollbacks would provide while completely ignoring the costs. It turns out that the costs would be nearly five times greater than the savings,” says Joanna Mauer, deputy director of ASAP.

ASAP compiled data on 12 of the efficiency standards DOE targeted, for which the department had previously published its own estimates for costs and savings it expected the rules to generate for consumers.

A common criticism of energy efficient appliances is that they often cost more to purchase than a less efficient alternative. Upon finalizing the efficiency standard for portable air conditioners in 2020, for example, the DOE expected the cost of buying more efficient technologies to add up to $1 billion for consumers who purchase those products during the 30 years following the rule going into effect. Taking those costs into account adds up to the roughly $11 billion in savings the DOE says it’s achieving by getting rid of those 12 standards. 

But that’s an incomplete picture, ASAP argues. When the DOE finalizes a standard, it typically also calculates the cumulative savings consumers would benefit from with a more efficient appliance. Those savings primarily come from lower energy bills (although the metric also considers other potential costs like repairs). The portable air conditioner standard, for instance, was expected to save consumers $4.1 billion over the lifetime of products purchased during the same 30 year time period. 

That leads to a net savings of $3.1 billion for consumers as a result of the efficiency standard for portable air conditioners. The net savings the DOE has previously estimated for the 12 rules on the chopping block now add up to $43.2 billion — which is what ASAP says is the more important number to consider. Those standards apply to an array of common products including microwave ovens, conventional cooking tops and ovens, air purifiers, dehumidifiers, external power supplies, battery chargers for phones and other devices, and more.

The DOE didn’t immediately respond to The Verge’s press inquiry. “We are bringing back common sense — slashing regulations meant to appease Green New Deal fantasies, restrict consumer choice and increase costs for the American people,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in the agency’s announcement last week.

Its proposals are likely to face legal challenges because energy efficiency standards are subject to an anti-backsliding provision within the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Energy to stop enforcing a slate of efficiency rules the administration plans to rescind or revise. News also broke this month that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to shutter the Energy Star program that can save a typical household $450 a year on energy bills.

The Trump administration is working to limit access to covid booster shots by creating more regulatory hoops for companies developing vaccines for “healthy persons.” The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it’s only prioritizing covid vaccine approvals for adults older than 65 and others over the age of 6 months who have at least one “risk factor” for a severe case of covid-19. 

“The FDA will approve vaccines for high-risk persons and, at the same time, demand robust, gold-standard data on persons at low risk,” FDA officials write in commentary laying out their plans in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). 

The move comes as notorious antivax crusader Robert F. Kennedy reshapes the US Department of Health and Human Services, recently pushing out the FDA’s top vaccine official and thousands of other federal health workers. Some public health experts are already voicing skepticism over whether the FDA’s new guidance for covid boosters will reap any benefits. 

“This is overly restrictive and will deny many people who want to be vaccinated a vaccine.”

“This is overly restrictive and will deny many people who want to be vaccinated a vaccine,” Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins University, said in an email to the New York Times.

“The only thing that can come of this will make vaccines less insurable and less available,” Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, virologist, and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told The Associated Press.

The FDA says it will require more data from additional clinical trials before approvals can be granted for covid-19 vaccines being developed for people not considered to be at heightened risk from severe sickness. It says 100 to 200 million Americans will still have annual access to covid vaccines after its policy change. That would be less than 60 percent of the US population. 

Last week, the agency approved the Novavax covid-19 vaccine for only older adults and people at higher risk from the disease.

“We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose,” the NEJM commentary says. 

But previous CDC studies have shown that getting a booster can help prevent mild to moderate cases of covid up to six months after getting the shot regardless of whether a person is at higher risk or not, Offit tells The Associated Press. And even if someone does get sick, being vaccinated can make the illness shorter and less severe and reduce the risk of developing long covid, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of covid-19-associated hospitalizations was 71.2 per 100,000 people during the 2024–25 season, according to the CDC — although hospitals haven’t been required to report covid-related hospital admissions to HHS since May of last year. Vaccines are an important safeguard for people with a weakened immune system. The FDA’s new directive raises questions about whether people considered healthy will be able to get vaccinated if they want to protect someone close to them who’s at greater risk.

In the NEJM article, the FDA notes that covid booster uptake has been low in the US, with less than a quarter of people getting the shot each year. “There may even be a ripple effect: public trust in vaccination in general has declined,” it says.

Kennedy, meanwhile, has a long history of spreading disinformation about vaccines, advocacy for which he has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and profited from during the covid pandemic. 

“It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Peter Marks, former director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that regulates vaccines, wrote in a resignation letter in March.

Renewable energy has driven a manufacturing boom in the US, but that’s all at stake as Congress weighs cuts to Biden-era tax incentives.

Solar, wind, and battery companies have announced plans to either create or expand 250 manufacturing facilities since August 2022. That’s when Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), considered the biggest federal investment to date in climate and clean energy. If those projects are up and running by 2030, they would collectively create more than 575,000 jobs and contribute $86 billion annually to gross domestic product, according to a report published today by the American Clean Power Association (ACP). 

Republican districts benefit the most from the IRA’s clean energy tax credits. But now, GOP lawmakers could take away those tax incentives if they follow through with President Donald Trump’s plan to pass a “big, beautiful” spending bill that would rollback what he calls a “green new scam.” 

“Republican districts benefit the most from the IRA’s clean energy tax credits”

Red states are home to 73 percent of active facilities, according to the ACP. And already, solar, wind, and battery manufacturing supports 122,000 full-time jobs. Solar manufacturing employed the biggest share of Americans, some 75,400 people. Solar was the fastest-growing source of electricity in 2024, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration, accounting for 81 percent of added annual capacity. Costs for solar and wind have fallen dramatically for decades, with utility-scale solar now the cheapest source of electricity in most parts of the world. 

Despite that growth, supply chains for solar energy have been concentrated in China and beset with concerns about forced labor and human rights violations, particularly in the Xinjiang region. The Inflation Reduction Act was meant to supercharge domestic manufacturing, largely through tax credits. And it was starting to pay off. Manufacturing capacity for solar modules grew 190 percent in the US last year, according to a separate report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and research firm Wood Mackenzie.

Those tax credits are now in the crosshairs of a Republican-controlled Congress trying to ram Trump’s agenda into a sweeping spending bill. A draft bill from the House Ways and Means committee last week proposes phasing out the advanced manufacturing tax credit (45x) and other tax incentives for renewables established in the IRA, and would add stipulations in the meantime that would make it difficult for projects to qualify for credits.

If those proposals are ultimately signed into law, the US clean energy industry will see job losses as factories shut down, MJ Shiao, ACP Vice President of Supply Chain and Manufacturing said during a press briefing last week.

“What we have seen from these texts from House Ways and Means, it basically goes too far, too fast,” Shiao said. “The manufacturers that were being supported by these incentives, and frankly, were trusting that the government was going to honor these incentives, you know, they’re getting the rug pulled out from under them.”

Meta’s building a new AI data center so massive in Louisiana that the local utility company has plans to construct three new gas-fired power plants to provide it with enough electricity. Now, advocates and lawmakers are pressing Meta for answers about how it’ll clean up pollution stemming from the data center’s energy consumption.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, shot off a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday demanding answers about how much energy the data center would use and the greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated. Powering the new data center with gas “flies in the face of Meta’s climate commitments,” the letter says.

Tech companies are rushing to build out data centers to train and run new AI tools, driving up electricity demand. In this case, power utility Entergy wants to meet that demand with new gas infrastructure, raising concerns about the impact Meta’s data center will have on the environment and local residents.

“We urgently need corporate responsibility”

“Meta’s backslide from its own climate pledges risks triggering broader economic harm at a time when we urgently need corporate responsibility,” Sen. Whitehouse said in a statement emailed to The Verge.

In 2020, Meta pledged to reach net-zero emissions across its operations, supply chain, and consumer use of its products by the end of the decade. But the company’s carbon footprint is larger now than it was when it set that goal, according to its latest sustainability report, as it doubles down on AI. 

The company has tried to reduce its emissions by matching its electricity use with equal purchases of renewable energy. It’s a strategy Meta and other big companies often take: pay to support new clean energy projects to try to cancel out the environmental effects of your facilities plugging into a power grid that runs on dirty energy. Environmental advocates are increasingly concerned that this strategy still burdens communities with local pollution, and that the pressure to meet rising electricity demand from AI is boosting fossil fuel use rather than renewable energy. 

We’re seeing that tussle play out in Richland Parish, Louisiana, where Meta has plans to build its largest data center to date. It’s spending $10 billion on the project, the company announced in December. Once complete, the campus would span 4 million square feet, about as large as 70 football fields. But the project is moot unless Meta can ensure there will be enough electricity available for all those servers, a problem it’s working with Entergy to solve. Entergy proposed building three entirely new gas plants with a total capacity of 2,260 megawatts to support the data center, but it has to get regulatory approval first.

Some advocates contend that there hasn’t been enough transparency around Meta’s data center plans to help the public understand the potential impact on the local power grid. The New Orleans-based Alliance for Affordable Energy and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a motion in March asking the Louisiana Public Service Commission to add Meta as an official party to proceedings over whether to approve construction of the new gas plants. Doing so would compel the company to disclose more information, and the commission is scheduled to consider the motion on Monday. 

“It’s hard to wrap your brain around [whether] a facility like this either might be good for your community or bad for your community without understanding the possible impact to your electrical system, your bills, and your water,” says Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy.

There are already forecasts that rapidly growing data center electricity demand could raise electricity bills in the US. Meta said in December that it would contribute $1 million a year to an Entergy program that helps older adults and people with disabilities afford their bills. Data centers have also been notorious water-guzzlers, although Meta says it would invest in projects to restore more water than it would consume.

Sen. Whitehouse’s letter, meanwhile, asks Meta to answer a list of questions by May 28th. On top of questions about the data center’s electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions, Whitehouse wants to know what the justification is for building gas-fired power plants rather than renewable energy alternatives. And it presses Meta to explain how the proposal aligns with its 2030 climate goal.

Meta maintains that it’ll continue matching its electricity use with support for renewable energy, including a commitment to help fund 1,500 megawatts of new solar and battery resources in Louisiana. It also said it would help fund the cost of adding technology to at least one power plant that would capture carbon dioxide emissions. Whitehouse wants to know how much funding it will provide and how much carbon will be captured. Carbon capture tech has been prohibitively expensive to deploy and costs are often offset by using the captured CO2 to produce more fossil fuels through a process called enhanced oil recovery.

“We received the letter and look forward to providing a response,” Meta spokesperson Ashley Settle said in an email to The Verge. “We believe a diverse set of energy solutions are necessary to power our AI ambitions – and we continue to explore innovative technology solutions.”

Entergy didn’t immediately respond to inquiries from The Verge. It has a goal of making sure that 50 percent of its generating capacity is carbon pollution-free by 2030. But the utility said that gas “is the lowest reasonable cost option available that can support the 24/7 electrical demands of a large data center like Meta,” in a statement to Fast Company, which first reported on Whitehouse’s letter.

The Trump administration plans to weaken drinking water rules meant to protect Americans from “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer, reproductive risks, liver damage, and other health issues. 

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the nation’s first legally enforceable federal drinking water limits on the most common types of forever chemicals. Today, the EPA announced an about-face. The agency now wants to exclude several types of the chemicals from the rule, including so-called GenX substances initially intended to replace older versions of forever chemicals but that ended up creating new concerns. It also proposed extending compliance deadlines for the two most prevalent forms of forever chemicals, and says it’ll establish a “framework” for more exemptions.

Health and environmental advocates slammed the proposed exclusions and enforcement delays as a threat to Americans. “Today’s decision is a shameful and dangerous capitulation to industry pressure that will allow continued contamination of our drinking water,” Mary Grant, water program director at the nonprofit Food & Water Watch said in a press statement. “This will cost lives.”

“A shameful and dangerous capitulation to industry pressure”

There are thousands of different types of forever chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Companies have used them for decades to make products such as nonstick pans, food packaging, and fabric protector water, stain, and heat-resistant. As a result, forever chemicals are estimated to have trickled into at least 45 percent of the nation’s tap water and are present in most Americans’ blood streams.

The Biden-era standards set limits for just five widely used types of chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (also known as “GenX Chemicals”), plus mixtures of several chemicals, including perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), found in floor wax, carpeting, and carpet cleaners. 

Some manufacturers have already pledged to stop using PFAS after facing a slew of lawsuits. The company 3M agreed to a $450 million settlement with the state of New Jersey on Tuesday over PFAS pollution. 

In April, the EPA said it would launch new efforts to study the chemicals and consider guidelines to limit pollution from manufacturers. At the time, advocacy groups were wary that the agency might simply delay action by calling for more studies — especially as the Trump administration attempts to slash the agency’s staff, budget, and research department. Advocates have been pushing for drinking water limits since President Donald Trump’s first term as a growing body of evidence pointed to the health risks. 

Now, it’s clear the agency doesn’t want to enforce existing forever chemical rules for drinking water. 

The initial compliance date for those rules was 2029. The EPA now says it only plans to keep limits for PFOA and PFOS, and move the compliance deadline back to 2031 to relieve pressure on small water systems. As their name suggests, forever chemicals are difficult to destroy and the Trump administration says its proposal would save money.

“This commonsense decision provides the additional time that water system managers need to identify affordable treatment technologies and make sure they are on a sustainable path to compliance,” National Rural Water Association CEO Matthew Holmes said in the EPA press release.

“We are on a path to uphold the agency’s nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water. At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a press release. The agency says it’ll put out a more detailed proposal “this fall,” with the goal of finalizing the rule in spring 2026.    

Rewind a few years, and it looked as if offshore wind might take off in the US. The Biden administration moved to open up much of the nation's coastlines to development, blue and even a couple swing states agreed to work with the White House to speed things up, and Congress passed sweeping tax incentives for renewable energy. Now, the tide has turned, and President Donald Trump is waging a war on windmills, attempting to kill projects that are already underway.

Trump's actions are putting tens of billions of dollars of investment at risk as developers try to forge ahead with the first batch of commercial-scale projects to break ground in the US. Even if they survive, the cloud of economic uncertainty around wind power could cast a shadow over the industry for years beyond the end of Trump's term.

"The outlook is far dimmer than it was a year ago," says Oliver Metcalfe, head of wind research at BloombergNEF (BNEF). "It's been non-stop bad news for the US offshore wind sector since Trump took office."

"It's been non-stop bad news for the US offshore wind sector since Trump took office."

On earnings calls over the past couple weeks, companies building offshore wind farms in the …

Read the full story at The Verge.

After farmers filed suit, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has agreed to restore climate information to webpages it took down soon after President Donald Trump took office this year.

The US Department of Justice filed a letter late last night on behalf of the USDA that says the agency “will restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-inauguration, including all USDA webpages and interactive tools” that were named in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It says the work is already “underway” and should be mostly done in about two weeks. 

If the Trump administration fulfills that commitment, it’ll be a significant victory for farmers and other Americans who rely on scientific data that has disappeared from federal websites since January.

“We’re ecstatic.”

“I’ll be real frank, it feels good to win one, right? Farmers have been so put upon by the actions of this administration that, you know, it feels good to be able to say, we have something for you. This is back. You can rely on these resources,” says Marcie Craig, executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York. “We’re ecstatic.”

The group filed suit in February alongside two environmental organizations, alleging that the USDA threatened organic farmers’ livelihoods by removing information they relied on to help them make decisions about planting crops and managing their land — key resources as climate change leads to more unpredictable and extreme weather. 

One of the resources removed by the USDA is an online tool called the “Climate Risk Viewer” that showed the impacts of climate change on rivers and water sheds, and how that might affect water supplies in the future.

“We’re really glad that USDA recognized that this blatantly unlawful purge is harming farmers and researchers and advocates all across the country, and we’re ready to ensure that USDA follows through on this promise,” Jeffrey Stein, an associate attorney with the nonprofit legal organization Earthjustice that represented the plaintiffs, tells The Verge. 

The initial complaint accused the USDA of violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that gives the public the right to access key records from any federal agency, the Paperwork Reduction Act that stipulates adequate notice before changing access to information, and the Administrative Procedure Act that governs the way federal agencies develop regulations. 

President Trump’s backing of the fossil fuel industry has also stripped farmers of federal funding through climate-related programs. The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York has lost nearly half of its budget this year due to funding freezes, which it has been trying to make up for through donations, according to Craig. 

“This has been one of so many cuts. You know, pain by a thousand cuts,” Craig says. “This [legal victory] was good … then, of course, after the initial feeling, you sit back, you take a breath, and you say, ‘and we still have a whole lot of work to do.’”

The US Energy Department says it’s rolling back long-standing efficiency standards for appliances, which advocates are calling a clear violation of the law. Continuing the Trump administration’s assault on federal water and energy efficiency programs, the department announced today what it’s calling its “largest deregulatory effort in history.” 

The agency is trying to rollback 47 regulations it says are “burdensome and costly,” including more than a dozen efficiency standards for appliances and battery chargers. The proposed rules target the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which contains an anti-backsliding provision — and that the Trump administration is seemingly trying to bypass.

“If this attack on consumers succeeds, President Trump would be raising costs dramatically for families as manufacturers dump energy- and water-wasting products into the market. Fortunately, it’s patently illegal, so hold your horses,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said in a press statement released today.

“Fortunately, it’s patently illegal, so hold your horses.”

The Energy Department didn’t immediately respond to a press inquiry from The Verge asking why it believes its proposals do not violate EPCA, which passed Congress in 1975 and had the anti-backsliding provision added in 1987. However, drafts of proposed rules on the Federal Register’s website say that it wants to return standards to previous limits set by Congress. 

In some cases, doing so could eliminate decades of energy and water saving standards, deLaski tells The Verge. A proposed rule for commercial clothes washers, for instance, would bring water conservation standards back to a “statutory baseline” set in 2007. Other rules target microwave ovens, conventional ovens, dish washers, faucets, portable air conditioners, and more. 

The law’s anti-backsliding provision stipulates that the energy secretary can’t amend a standard in a way that “increases the maximum allowable energy use” or “decreases the minimum required energy efficiency” of a covered product. In other words, the agency can’t issue rules that are weaker than they were before. In many cases, the Energy Department has updated standards initially set by Congress as more efficient technologies became available — which it’s required to do by law if it is “economically justified.”

The rules proposed today attempt to go back to limits set by Congress years ago, undoing tougher standards set more recently. The Energy Department is also attempting to get rid of standards altogether in cases where limits weren’t explicitly set in law by Congress. 

In the proposed rule for commercial clothes washers, the agency argues that the anti-backsliding provision applies to energy efficiency but not water standards. “Water use has nothing to do with the energy consumed by a clothes washer. Therefore, the anti-backsliding provision does not apply,” it says. That’s a misleading argument, according to energy experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Technologies that use less hot water also use less energy, since it takes energy to heat up that water.

The agency still needs to open up its rules for public comment before attempting to finalize them, and is likely to face legal challenges. Courts have previously weighed in on the strength of the anti-backsliding provision. A 2004 decision from a federal appeals court in a suit filed by NRDC, several states, and other plaintiffs says EPCA “unambiguously” constrains the Energy Department’s ability to weaken efficiency standards once they are published as final rules in the Federal Register.

“We’re seeing the wholesale abandonment of a dozen-plus energy efficiency standards without any justification, and that absolutely violates the anti-backsliding provision,” says Kit Kennedy, who was one of the attorneys in the 2004 case and is currently a managing director at the NRDC.

The move follows a presidential memorandum Trump signed on Friday that takes aim at water use rules and related energy efficiency standards, as well as news that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to wind down the Energy Star program.

Experts warn that the proposed rules could lead to higher utility bills for consumers. While a program like Energy Star can help people choose more efficient appliances, standards the Trump administration is now targeting are supposed to ensure that more efficient technologies are accessible to anyone regardless of what they can afford to purchase. 

“Appliance energy efficiency standards have been a great success. They save households on their electricity bills every month,” Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University says in an email to The Verge. “Refrigerators are just as cold and just as large as they ever were but they are now much cheaper to run.”

Update, May 14th: This post has been updated with more information about the water and energy use of clothes washers and the 2004 lawsuit.

Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum Friday afternoon directing the Department of Energy to “consider using all lawful authority to rescind” or weaken regulations for water and energy efficiency for dishwashers and washing machines. The action also includes water use standards for showers, faucets, toilets, and urinals.

It closes out a week of attacks on policies meant to save Americans money by incentivizing manufacturers to make products that save water and energy. Earlier in the week, CNN and E&E News reported that the Trump administration would shutter the Energy Star program as part of a “reorganization” planned at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Energy Star certifies products for energy efficiency, allowing consumers to choose the most energy-efficient home appliances by spotting the recognizable blue Energy Star label. The rules President Trump is targeting now are actually consumer protections, meant to ensure that any customer can purchase something that meets reasonable efficiency standards.

“Congress enacted these laws, the president can’t just decide that they’re going to go away.”

A White House fact sheet says the Secretary of Energy should work with the Office of Legislative Affairs to make recommendations to Congress on any water pressure “or related energy efficiency laws” that ought to change or be repealed altogether.

It also says the Secretary of Energy should pause enforcement of the rules mentioned in the memorandum until they’re rescinded or revised. “The Federal Government should not impose or enforce regulations that make taxpayers’ lives worse,” the presidential memorandum says.

“It’ll only raise costs for consumers to get rid of these standards, if they get rid of these standards,” says Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. “Congress enacted these laws, the president can’t just decide that they’re going to go away.” deLaski also notes that while the White House says it wants to get rid of “useless water pressure standards,” the rules mentioned in the memorandum actually target efficiency standards since water pressure depends on the plumbing system connected to the device. 

Trump also signed four bills approved through the Congressional Review Act undoing Biden-era efficiency standards for water heaters, refrigerators, walk-in coolers, and more. In April, the president signed an executive order to purportedly make “America’s showers great again” by rescinding an Obama-era definition of showerheads that raised efficiency standards.  

Update, May 10th: This story has been updated with more information about water pressure from Andrew deLaski.

The District of Columbia and 17 states —  including New York, Arizona, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, and Illinois — sued the Trump administration Monday over its attempts to stop wind energy developments across the US. 

The states argue that by signing a presidential memorandum on his first day in office that halted federal approvals for wind energy projects, President Trump impeded their ability to reduce pollution and provide residents with cheap electricity. Billions of dollars of investments they’ve made in infrastructure, workforce development, and supply chains for wind energy are at risk, they contend.

“This administration is devastating one of our nation’s fastest-growing sources of clean, reliable, and affordable energy.”

“This administration is devastating one of our nation’s fastest-growing sources of clean, reliable, and affordable energy,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release.

The suit claims that Trump has attacked wind energy in an “arbitrary and capricious” way. It invokes the Administrative Procedure Act that allows courts to deem federal agency actions unlawful if they’re found to be “arbitrary” and “capricious.”

On his first day, Trump also declared a so-called “national energy emergency” in an executive order to promote the development of fossil fuel projects. “These and numerous other executive actions similarly encouraged domestic energy development—that is, all but wind and other renewable energy,” the complaint says. 

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is framing the lawsuit as a partisan attack. “Instead of working with President Trump to unleash American energy and lower prices for American families, Democrat Attorneys General are using lawfare to stop the President’s popular energy agenda,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an email to The Verge. “Americans in blue states should not have to pay the price of the Democrats’ radical climate agenda.”

Trump’s election campaign received more than $75 million in contributions from oil and gas interests. The president has also continued to spread misinformation that falsely links offshore wind projects to whale deaths without evidence. 

The states also claim that the Trump administration is abruptly reversing longstanding policy after federal agencies have already assessed the potential benefits and risks of wind energy projects. Trump’s presidential memorandum calls for a new review of federal permitting processes and the purported environmental and economic “necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases.” The plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration is failing to follow existing environmental rules regulating industry, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

In April, the Trump administration escalated its fight against windmills by ordering the developer of a major project off the coast of New York to stop construction, even though the project already had federal and state approvals in place. The company, Equinor, said in an earnings call last week that it’s considering taking legal action.

“The order to halt work now is unprecedented and in our view unlawful. This is a question of the rights and obligations granted under legally issued permits, and security of investments based on valid approvals,” Anders Opedal, president and CEO of Equinor ASA, said in an April 29 press release.

Wind is the biggest source of renewable energy in the US, providing more than 10 percent of the country’s electricity. Wind and solar energy are generally cheaper new sources of electricity than fossil fuels. 

The complaint filed today in a Massachusetts district court calls the president’s directive an “existential threat” to the industry that has already “stopped most wind-energy development in its tracks.”

Correction, May 7th: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that wind is the biggest source of clean energy in the US and provides more than 20 percent of the country’s electricity. It is the biggest source of renewable energy and provides more than 10 percent.

President Donald Trump proposed drastic budget cuts today that could stymie green energy projects, gut environmental protections, and further hobble health and climate research in the US.

Topline budget proposals released today for the 2026 fiscal year would ax $15 billion in federal funding for renewable energy and new technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions. It would strip nearly $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health, while the Environmental Protection Agency would see its budget slashed in half. 

All in all, it’s yet another wrecking ball aimed at federal agencies after Trump and billionaire-crony Elon Musk swiftly moved to layoff thousands of government employees and defang regulators charged with protecting Americans’ homes, health, air, and water. The proposal also reads like a tirade against civil rights and any solutions for combatting climate change.

“The budget document is laced with racist, anti-science, petty, and cruel language that should be beneath the president of the United States.”

“The budget document is laced with racist, anti-science, petty, and cruel language that should be beneath the president of the United States,” Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a press release. 

The budget line cutting $624 million for the Economic Development Administration and Minority Business Development Agency describes programs as “subsidies for idealogues [sic] who prioritize ‘racial equity’ and the radicalized climate agenda” and criticizes funding of a “Pride Plaza” in Portland, Oregon. 

The agency that leads weather forecasting and research into climate change and marine ecosystems, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, takes a major hit with a proposed $1.3 billion loss in funding. It “terminates a variety of climate-dominated” initiatives including educational programs it claims “radicalize students against markets and spread environmental alarm.” The budget would also take away $209 million for procuring weather satellites. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would lose $646 million, even as a growing number of billion-dollar weather disasters take a toll on the US. The document says FEMA will no longer “instill equity as a foundation of emergency management,” and falsely claims that the agency “discriminated” against people who voted for Trump — echoing disinformation about FEMA that Musk and others promoted on social media last year that stoked violent threats against the agency’s staff. 

To try to prevent worsening climate disasters, the Biden administration funneled an unprecedented amount of federal funding into carbon pollution-free energy projects. Trump has been quick to try to claw those funds back, despite facing legal challenges for attempting to take away funding that had been approved by Congress. His budget proposal today says it would cancel more than $15.2 billion from the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed in 2021. That includes funding for for EV and battery manufacturing and cutting $5.7 billion that had been earmarked for EV chargers. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been another target of Trump and Musk’s deregulatory agenda, and would lose more than $4.2 billion if the President’s budget is enacted. Some of the most severe cuts would be to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, a loss of $254 million that would otherwise go toward the clean up of more than 1,300 toxic sites across the US. The EPA’s scientific research arm would similarly lose $235 million. The budget also eliminates the EPA’s environmental justice programs, slashing $100 million in funding. 

“When the next toxic disaster strikes, who will answer the phone and respond? Americans overwhelmingly support EPA’s mission, and the public must speak up and tell Congress to stop these attacks on public health,” Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network made up of hundreds of former EPA staff, said in a press statement.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had a budget of roughly $48 billion last year, would lose nearly 40 percent of its budget under President Trump’s plans. The document criticizes NIH of promoting “radical gender ideology to the detriment of America’s youth.” It comes a day after the Department of Health and Human Services published a report on treating transgender youth based on harmful pseudoscience that the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics said, “misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.”

The US House of Representatives voted to revoke California’s ability to enact its own, tougher pollution regulations for cars and heavy-duty trucks. 

It’s an attempt to kill one of the nation’s most ambitious climate plans and strip California of its ability to set stricter tailpipe pollution standards than the nation as a whole. But it’s not clear that Republicans are even on sound legal footing in trying to stop the state from enacting its own rules.

“This vote is an unprecedented and reckless attack on states’ legal authority to address the tailpipe pollution causing asthma, lung disease and heart conditions,” Kathy Harris, director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a press release. “If other states don’t like California’s approach, they don’t need to follow it. But Congress shouldn’t intervene and try to block state leaders from protecting their residents from dangerous pollution.”

“An unprecedented and reckless attack on states’ legal authority”

Back in December, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a waiver approving California’s plan to require all new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035. Resolutions passed by the House Wednesday and Thursday aim to reverse that approval, as well as similar waivers the EPA granted California for regulations limiting nitrogen oxide pollution and requiring an increasing number of medium and heavy-duty vehicles to be zero emission.  

Resolutions the House passed this week still have to make it through the Senate, teeing up a fight over whether Congress even has the authority take away the approvals. The Senate parliamentarian and Government Accountability Office (GAO) have previously said that Congress can’t use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to revoke waivers the EPA issues to California. The CRA allows Congress to overturn certain new rules with a simple majority vote; what’s in question is whether it applies to waivers that the GAO and parliamentarian don’t consider recent rules within the parameters of the CRA.

The 1970 Clean Air Act allowed California to set its own tailpipe emission standards because of higher pollution levels in the state. And because the Golden State has a larger economy than most other countries in the world, the standards it has set for vehicle manufacturers over the years have swayed the entire industry and influenced other governments. At least 11 other states including New York and Oregon have adopted similar climate laws incentivizing electric vehicle sales. 

Carmakers criticized the Biden administration’s December approval of that plan — one of the most ambitious climate targets in the nation — writing that they expected Donald Trump to revoke the waiver. During his first term in office, President Trump similarly tried to take away California’s authority to set its own emissions standards for cars, but was unsuccessful.

“Most of the states that follow California are NOT ready for these requirements. Achieving the sales mandates under current market realities will take a miracle,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation that includes Ford, GM, Honda and others, wrote in a December press release.

Within weeks of President Trump stepping into office, key health and environmental resources that doctors and farmers rely on started disappearing from federal websites. Trump was also quick to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting off funding - as well as the flow of data that people around the world use to prevent famine and issue warnings ahead of natural disasters.

"As we all watched the websites being pulled down, as we all watched data disappearing, we were all concerned - because that's truth. There's truth in data," says a former contractor who was granted anonymity to speak freely without fear of repercussions. "Now it's more easy just to say something and force it as the truth. But there's no way to back it up."

The US collects a vast amount of weather and climate data, an essential resource for humanitarian efforts around the globe. It guides efforts to predict where droughts and crop failures might lead to food shortages, where people are at risk from flash flooding, and how to prepare for the Atlantic hurricane season. Even if these systems eventually get back up and running, erratic changes under the Trump administration are already …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The Metals Company, which has been trying for years to exploit battery materials strewn across the ocean floor, announced today that it has applied for a permit from the Trump administration to start commercially mining in international waters.

Together, the company and President Trump are circumventing a multilateral process to develop rules for deep sea mining that has so far prevented any commercial exploitation from happening.

Moving forward with mining now, before fully understanding the potential environmental impact or having international rules in place to mitigate the damage, is already angering other governments and conservation groups.

“An act of total disregard for international law”

“The first application to commercially mine the seabed will be remembered as an act of total disregard for international law and scientific consensus,” Greenpeace International senior campaigner Louisa Casson said in a press release. “Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining.”

Trump signed an executive order last week to try to fast-track deep seabed mining, which he framed as a way to counter China’s dominance in mineral supply chains. The Trump administration claims it has authority to grant permits to mine through the 1980 US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and because the US has not ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention, ratified by more than 160 other nations, established the International Seabed Authority (ISA) that is in the process of crafting rules for deep sea mining. 

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said the executive order “violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community,” the BBC reported on Friday. 

The island nation of Nauru initially sponsored The Metals Company (TMC) and its deep-sea mining effort, setting off a scramble to develop international regulations in 2021. The ISA missed a 2023 deadline to draft those rules after failing to reach consensus on thorny issues like who’s liable for paying for any damage that might occur. Scientists and environmental advocates have also argued that there’s still too little we know about the ocean’s abyss to fully understand the risks, let alone mine responsibly there. 

The surface of the Moon is better mapped than the world’s seafloor, where scientists are still making surprising discoveries that raise questions about whether mining there could have far-reaching effects on marine life and coastal communities. More than 30 countries — including US neighbors Canada and Mexico — have called for a ban or moratorium on deep-sea mining until there are international rules in place.

TMC, apparently, is tired of waiting. It has applied for a permit from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to harvest materials from a 25,160 square kilometer-swath of seafloor roughly 1,300 nautical miles south of San Diego. It also applied for two licenses to explore more areas for mining potential. The permit is for an area that’s part of the Clarion Clipperton Zone, a region between Hawaii and Mexico that lies outside of US national jurisdiction and where mining is supposed to be regulated by the ISA, NOAA has previously said on its website. The Clarion Clipperton Zone is full of life that scientists have recently discovered; up to 90 percent of species collected for study here have been completely new to science.

The zone has also been a focus of proposed deep sea mining efforts because the seafloor is covered in rock-like polymetallic nodules full of nickel, cobalt, and manganese used in rechargeable batteries and deemed “critical minerals” by the US government. Trump has made sweeping threats in the name of securing critical minerals, from annexing Greenland to warning Ukraine of “big, big problems” if it backed out of a critical minerals deal. 

Trump is reportedly fond of the nodules. “I’m happy to say, a nodule just like this one was presented to the president last week and now sits on the resolute desk,” Gerard Barron, chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, said during a House Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing held today. 

“We are offering the United States a shovel-ready path to new and abundant supplies of nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese—critical metals for energy, infrastructure, and defense,” Barron said in a press statement announcing the permit application. “After continuous delay at the international level, the United States now has a clear opportunity to reclaim its leadership role in the deep sea.”

The Metals Company says it has invested more than half a billion dollars “preparing for this moment,” and believes it can recover up to 15.5 million metric tons of nickel, 12.8 million metric tons of copper, 2 million metric tons of cobalt, and 345 million metric tons of manganese from the Clarion Clipperton Zone. TMC also contends that mining at sea would be less harmful than mining on land and has repudiated a controversial study published last year — which the company had initially funded — that found evidence of mysterious “dark oxygen” rising from the deep sea.

Opponents of deep sea mining, meanwhile, point to alternatives that limit the need to pluck nodules from the seafloor. EV companies, including Tesla, have worked towards reducing the use of nickel and cobalt in batteries. And it’s been estimated that by 2050, half of cobalt and nickel demand for EVs in the US could be met through recycling.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a new plan to address “forever chemicals” once widely used in non-stick and water-proof products that have since been linked to cancer, reproductive health issues, and liver damage. The vague details the EPA has shared so far, however, have health and environmental advocates wondering whether the EPA’s plan helps or delays action to keep the chemicals out of drinking water.

The agency says it’ll launch new efforts to study the chemicals and will develop new guidelines to limit pollution from manufacturers. But the announcement on Monday comes as the EPA under Donald Trump attempts to roll back dozens of other environmental protections. And, notably, the agency hasn’t decided whether it plans to enforce existing limits on the amount of forever chemicals in drinking water. Nor will the agency say whether it plans to defend a Biden-era rule to classify the two most common forms of PFAS as hazardous chemicals prioritized for cleanup under the federal Superfund law.

“It just feels like it offered a lot of words without saying anything,” says Mary Grant, a campaign director at the nonprofit Food & Water Watch. “It reminds me so much of the previous Trump administration, where they had PFAs roadmap after PFAs roadmap without actually taking any steps to really move the needle.”

“A lot of words without saying anything.”

The chemicals fall under the umbrella of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and earned the “forever” label because of how long they can persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body. They were used for decades in items such as nonstick pans, food packaging, fire-fighting foams, fabric protector, dental floss, and menstrual products. After facing a slew of lawsuits, some major companies have already pledged to stop using PFAS. But the chemicals have already made their way into at least 45 percent of the nation’s tap water and into most Americans’ blood streams.  

“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a press release yesterday. “This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water.”

The EPA said it would develop new water pollution regulations for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers. Forever chemicals can be used in the electroplating process of applying an anticorrosive “chrome” finish to metal. The EPA also says it’ll “designate an agency lead” on PFAS initiatives, including new efforts to gather information on how to detect and destroy the chemicals. 

Last year the Biden administration finalized the nation’s first legally enforceable federal limits on the most common types of PFAS in drinking water. It was the culmination of years of research and advocacy stretching back to Trump’s first term in office, when advocates and Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet on the issue.

Industry groups filed suit over the national drinking water standards, claiming the EPA overstepped its authority in crafting them. Trade groups similarly filed suit against the Biden administration over the hazardous waste designation for PFAS, arguing the EPA misinterpreted the Superfund law.

The EPA’s announcement yesterday didn’t mention either suit, only saying that it will “address the most significant compliance challenges” related to national drinking water regulations for forever chemicals. When asked by The Verge whether it planned to defend those PFAS rules in court, EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in an email that “New EPA leadership is in the process of reviewing the PFAS drinking water rule, and the issues presented in the litigation in the current case around it, and developing its position on how to proceed.” The agency faces May deadlines to decide whether to defend the drinking water and hazardous waste rules after asking for extensions in both cases.

Donald Trump wants to mine the depths of the ocean for critical minerals ubiquitous in rechargeable batteries, signing an executive order on Thursday to try to expedite mining within US and international waters. 

It’s a brash move that critics say could create unknown havoc on sea life and coastal economies, and that bucks international agreements. Talks to develop rules for deep-sea mining are still ongoing through the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a process that missed an initial 2023 deadline and has continued to stymie efforts to start commercially mining the deep sea.

“A dangerous precedent”

“Fast-tracking deep-sea mining by bypassing the ISA’s global regulatory processes would set a dangerous precedent and would be a violation of customary international law,” Duncan Currie, legal adviser for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition that has advocated for a moratorium on deep sea mining, said in a press statement.

The ISA was established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. More than 160 nations have ratified the convention, but the United States has not. Ignoring the convention, the executive order Trump signed directs federal agencies to expedite the process for issuing licenses to companies seeking to recover minerals “in areas beyond national jurisdiction” in accordance with the 1980 US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. A country’s territorial jurisdiction only extends roughly 200 nautical miles from shore.

The Trump administration wants to work with industry “to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources,” the executive order says. However, no country has yet to commercially mine the deep ocean where depths reach about 656 feet (200 meters) in international waters. There have already been efforts to explore parts of the ocean floor rich in nickel, copper, cobalt, iron, and manganese sought after for rechargeable batteries, though, and China is a leading refiner of many critical minerals.  

China responded on Friday: the BBC reported Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun as saying that Trump’s move “violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community.”

The Metals Company announced in March that the Canadian company had already “met with officials in the White House” and planned to apply for permits under existing US mining code to begin extracting minerals from the high seas. 

California-based company Impossible Metals asked the Trump administration earlier this month to auction off mining leases for areas off the coast of American Samoa, which would be within US-controlled waters. Trump’s executive order also directs the Secretary of the Interior to expedite the process for leasing areas for mining within US waters.

Companies seeking to exploit offshore mineral resources argue that it would cause less harm than mining on land. Their opponents contend that there’s still too little research to even understand how widespread the effects of deep sea mining could be on marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them. Recent studies have warned of “irreversible” damage and loud noise affecting sea life, and one controversial study raises questions of whether the deep sea could be an important source of “dark oxygen” for the world. 

More than 30 countries — including Palau, Fiji, Costa Rica, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have called for a ban or moratorium on deep-sea mining until international rules are in place to minimize the potential damage.

“The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it,” Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy said in a press release.

After stranding former US Agency for International Development (USAID) workers with devices holding sensitive information, the Trump administration says it will no longer physically collect their government-issued phones, laptops, and tablets.

An email sent by USAID to workers on Thursday and obtained by The Verge says the devices will be wiped remotely, and then “marked as disposed.” Each direct hire or contractor will then be responsible for discarding the equipment. It’s unclear from the email whether the decision affects people stationed abroad or only those within the continental US.

The discarded devices are basically now trash

Some former employees had been waiting months to send in the devices before the change in plan was announced yesterday. Soon after stepping into office, President Donald Trump froze foreign aid funding and shuttered nearly all USAID programs. A majority of USAID’s 10,000 employees are posted overseas. Workers who were terminated while working abroad were told they’d get shipping labels to return equipment but never got them, The Verge reported last month.

One employee based in the US described a haphazard process for returning their laptop into their office in late February, with computers dumped in giant rolling garbage bins. E-waste often contains hazardous materials including lead or mercury that can leach out of landfills, so it’s illegal in many states and in Washington, DC to toss certain electronics in the trash.

The delay in collecting those devices posed security concerns for the Trump administration, former federal workers, and partner organizations. Some workers were still able to access work accounts and email on those devices, even after being terminated. Devices might also contain personnel records, sensitive contact information, and even bank details used to facilitate payments. Abandoning those devices with former workers placed the responsibility on them to keep all that information safe and secure.

Wiping those devices remotely should alleviate the risk. It’s an action federal agencies can  typically take to safeguard data on any lost or stolen devices, according to a former government official The Verge spoke to in March who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.

But once the gadgets have been wiped, former employees say the devices would need a new operating system to be able to function. And terminated employees would no longer be able to use the personal identification verification (PIV) cards that allow someone to log into a USAID computer. The discarded devices are basically now trash. “Isn’t that just such waste [sic]. They will all be unusable,” a former USAID employee who was also granted anonymity because of the risk of reprisal, messaged The Verge. 

Federal employees typically return equipment after leaving a post, and those devices are often reallocated to other staff, other federal agencies, or partner organizations. It might also get donated to state and local agencies, sent for public auction, or sent to a secure disposal facility. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, however, equipment worth less than $10,000 can also be “retained, sold, or otherwise disposed of [by recipients] with no further responsibility to the Federal agency.”

The State Department, which absorbed any remaining USAID programs, declined to comment. The email obtained by The Verge says the decision to no longer require former employees to physically return their equipment was made “to simplify processes and to reduce burden.” 

Mia Sato contributed to reporting.

Solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries that have been major suppliers to the US are facing newly increased tariffs, hiked up as high as 3,521 percent. 

The tariffs affect Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, which together accounted for more than three quarters of total module imports last year, according to Bloomberg. The tariffs essentially make the products “unmarketable” in the US, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The tariffs essentially make the products “unmarketable”

The move comes after long-running Commerce Department investigations into whether Chinese companies were funneling products through Southeast Asia to avoid tariffs and lower prices. It also heightens Donald Trump’s trade war with China after roiling global markets with drastic tariff proposals this month. The president called a 90-day pause on tariffs, excluding China. 

US solar companies have been split on what to do about cheap solar cells from Southeast Asia. Domestic manufacturers petitioned the Commerce Department to investigate, while renewable energy project developers are worried about the tariffs raising costs for construction and the manufacturing of panels in the US using imported cells.

Cambodia refused to comply with the investigation, and got hit with the highest tariffs at 3,521 percent. Duties for companies in Vietnam reach as high as 395.9 percent, 375.2 in Thailand, and 34.4 for Malaysia. 

The US International Trade Commission still has to weigh in on the proposed tariffs in June to finalize them.