“Scarface,” a young Gray wolf in Hayden Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Last week, Lauren Boebert’s cynically-named “Pet and Livestock Protection Act” passed the House of Representatives on a narrow, largely party-line vote. Five Democrats broke ranks and voted for it (Gleusenkamp Perez – WA, Cuellar – TX, Gonzalez – TX, Costa – CA, and Gray – CA), while four Republicans broke ranks and voted against it (Fitzpatrick – PA, Buchanan – FL, Van Drew – NJ, and Fine – FL). It is an attack on wolves, but just as importantly an attack on the Endangered Species Act itself. More to the point, the bill is an embodiment of Boebert herself – extreme, dishonest, and deeply anti-wildlife.

The bill forces the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue its 2020 nationwide wolf delisting, a decision a federal court immediately overturned for the agency’s failure to base their decision on science. That outcome would dismantle all federal protections for wolves by turning wolf management over to state governments. The de-listing of wolves in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (also forced by a congressional rider) serves as a sobering preview of how removal of federal protections unfolds: All three states immediately instituted trophy hunting and trapping seasons under regulations so flimsy that wolves are targeted for night hunting with enhanced vision goggles, wolves are being run over with snowmobiles with impunity in Wyoming and Idaho, and in 86% of Wyoming, wolf killing is completely unregulated – no limits on hunting season, bag limits, or methods. Even a hunting license isn’t required.

The Boebert wolf delisting bill also blocks judicial review, an extreme and un-American step in seizing power from the public which prevents any appeal to the courts. So regardless of how badly the ecological trainwreck of wolf delisting becomes – even including extirpation of the species throughout the lower 48 states – there would be no avenue for legal accountability. Which is precisely Boebert’s goal.

Boebert first introduced wolf delisting legislation in February of 2023, titled the “Trust the Science Act.”  The name was ironic since wolves protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act could only be delisted if the science showed that their populations were fully recovered, and the threats that risked extinction were removed. Neither had happened. So instead of trusting the science, Boebert proposed legislation that would force the delisting of wolves, circumventing the science and removing federal protections by political fiat, and blocking any legal accountability through the courts.

Exactly one year previously, conservation groups including Western Watersheds Project had successfully won a lawsuit challenging the first Trump administration’s nationwide delisting of wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had gone through the rulemaking process, prescribed under the Endangered Species Act, and issued a determination that wolves were fully recovered and no longer needed federal protection. But agency decisions are subject to judicial review, and conservation groups from across the country challenged this delisting as a political hatchet-job rather than a science-based conclusion. The court ultimately agreed and struck down the nationwide delisting for the agency disregarding the best available science and failing to undertake an adequate threats assessment.

Notwithstanding the fact that the judicial system had just resolved the question, Boebert ginned up a bill that would undermine the science, bypass the courts, and named it the Trust the Science Act.

Through ridiculous antics of all kinds, Lauren Boebert became so unpopular that she was basically run out of western Colorado. Her gun-themed restaurant in Rifle, Colorado – Shooter’s Grill, where waitresses openly carried firearms – was forced to close its doors in July 2022 when the landlord decided not to renew her lease. Her campaign office, leased from the same landlord, also was terminated. Boebert famously has a track record of voting against immigration included targeting ‘sanctuary cities’ for federal defunding, opposing a path to citizenship for “Dreamers,” undocumented adults brought to the United States as children. So it looked like karma when Boebert’s former restaurant location was leased out to Tapatios Family Mexican Restaurant.

Boebert’s extreme brand of politics was branded “angertainment” by a political opponent named Adam Frisch, a relative unknown who nearly won a bid to unseat Boebert in the 2022 congressional race. With 99% of the district reporting, Frisch led the race. After a recount, Boebert survived by a mere 546 votes. Rather than face Frisch (and western Colorado voters) again, Boebert decided to leave and run for Congress on Colorado’s eastern Plains, after incumbent Rep. Ken Buck announced that he would be retiring (citing disgust with the January 6^th insurrection at the Capitol and Trump’s lies about the 2020 election results).

On January 6^th, 2021, Boebert herself made a cryptic post stating that “Today is 1776,” at 5:30 in the morning (presumably Mountain Time). Four and a half hours later, at noon Eastern Time according to a timeline of the January 6^th insurrection, President Trump made his speech claiming that the election result was fraudulent and called on Vice President Mike Pence not to certify it; the first rioters arrived at the Capitol building at 1 pm. After Donald Trump lost his re-election bid in November 2020, Lauren Boebert had been one of a handful of congressional lawmakers invited to meetings to plan the events of January 6^th. At 1:55 pm, Boebert rose to make her first speech on the floor of the House. In the midst of her yelling rant, she blurted out, “Madame Speaker, I have constituents outside this building right now. I promised my voters to be their voice!” Years later, during the congressional investigation of the January 6^th riot, a Proud Boys document came to light, laying out an eight-page blueprint for planning the insurrection. It was titled, “1776 Returns.”

But, if Lauren Boebert belongs to the lunatic fringe of the political spectrum, the “paramilitary wing of the GOP” as one newspaper editor put it, or was even a co-conspirator in the January 6^th insurrection, why should that be relevant to her efforts to strip federal protections from the gray wolf? The answer is simple: Legislating to de-list a species under the Endangered Species Act is an extreme and dangerous precedent, requiring an extreme and environmentally unhinged proponent. Boebert’s unhinged approach disqualifies her as a representative to be taken seriously.

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (92 to 0 in the Senate, 355 to 4 in the House), the central point was to make listing and de-listing decisions solely on the basis of science— to get rid of the political interference that had accelerated extinctions for the first two centuries of American history. Polling has shown overwhelming public support for the law ever since, despite the efforts of anti-conservation lobbyists to convince us otherwise. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), the sponsor of a similar bill to force the de-listing of grizzly bears to strip them of ESA protections, also supports selling off public lands and primaried incumbent Liz Cheney on the basis of her role in spotlighting efforts to overthrow the presidential election during January 6^th Commission hearings. The credibility of the proponents of these attacks—on January 6^th and on the ESA—undermines the credibility of their legislation.

Fast forward to April 2024, when Boebert was able to get her “Trust the Science Act” bill to force wolf delisting passed by a four-vote margin in the House. Yadira Caraveo (D-CO) was one of four Democrats who voted in favor, and she was voted out of office that year by a Colorado electorate that had voted in favor of a ballot measure to compel wolf reintroduction in the state just four years previously. The bill was then referred to the Senate, but died without ever receiving a floor vote.

Meanwhile, conservation groups were in court to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s denial of two petitions (by Western Watersheds Project, seeking a West-wide listing  and Center for Biological Diversity, seeking an emergency Northern Rockies listing) to re-list the federally-unprotected wolves in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and parts of eastern Oregon and Washington. In July of 2025, that lawsuit was successful. The judge ruled that a West-wide Distinct Population Segment was the most appropriate population unit qualifying for protection, and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to deny listing it was contrary to the best available science. The judge took particular note of the scientific shortcomings of unreliable population models in Idaho and Montana, and his ruling called into question the agency’s arbitrary decision to ignore the need to recover wolves in historic habitats they had not yet repopulated. So not only is wolf listing still warranted in the states with small and struggling wolf populations, it is even warranted in the states where wolf populations are largest. Because threats to the species are part of the calculus.

Now, in 2025, Boebert has rebranded an identical wolf-delisting bill as the “Pet and Livestock Protection Act” ( another misnomer because it does not contain any provisions to protect either livestock or pets). Once again, having passed the House, it heads to the Senate, this time during an election year roiled by a White House embroiled in controversy, putting seemingly safe Republican districts back in play. Senate Democrats have historically stood strong against attacks on the Endangered Species Act involving a variety of species, including wolves. After all, the whole point of the Endangered Species Act is to get political meddling out of the equation and put science in the driver’s seat. But in these anything-goes times, nothing can be taken for granted. Watch for a major push by conservation groups to block Boebert’s wolf-extinction agenda, and see which special interests support the bill, or stay silent on the sidelines.

The post Lauren Boebert’s All-Out Anti-Wolf Assault on the ESA appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

…A dream I had
Of a world all mad.
Not a simple happy mad like me,
Who am mad like an empty scene
Of water and willow tree,
Where the wind hath been;
But that foul Satan-mad,
Who rots in his own head,
And counts the dead

–Walter de la Mare, “The Fool Rings His Bells”

We knew it was going to be bad when the tree hit the house. There’d been nearly foot of rain in the last week. The ground was so saturated that the first blast of wind the front in a train of storms uprooted the willow I’d planted twenty years ago, toppling the 30-foot-tall tree. Fortunately for us, being a golden-leaved member of the Salix family the tree, a favorite foraging spot for sapsuckers and woodpeckers that was just beginning to provide cooling late summer shade from the afternoon sun, made a willowy landing and didn’t crash through a window or dent the gutter. The willows fall was a prelude to a coming deluge, the latest in a series of storms that had raked across the Pacific Northwest in December, warm storms cycling up from the tropical Pacific. Climate change? Consider the fact that for most of December, the temperature here 40 miles north of the 45th parallel of latitude, has been 15 degrees above normal. Consider that it’s been so warm, the ski slopes on Mt. Hood at Timberline (6,000 feet) have yet to open, the latest date in more than a century. Even though Oregon escaped the worst of the flooding, all three rivers that converge here in Oregon City–the Willamette, Tualitan, and Clackamas–rose out of their banks, enveloping roads, fields, and homes. The forecast calls for rain in nine of the next 10 days. The climate has changed and will keep changing, faster than we can adapt, even if we try, which we aren’t…

Our fallen willow.

Willamette River flood from the Arch Bridge, Oregon City.

Willamette Falls, second second-largest falls by volume in the US, nearly inundated.

The 50-foot drop of Willamette Falls nearly flooded out.

Willamette Falls, pouring through the old power station.

Flood debris at the old Willamette Falls hydro plant, first in the Pacific Northwest.

Floodwaters inundate the old Blue Heron paper mill.

Flooding of the Blue Heron paper mill, Oregon City.

Willamette rising up the riverwall at the old Oregon City and West Linn mills.

Floodwaters at the Willamette River locks.

Willamette floodwaters in Oregon City.

Arch Bridge over the flooded Willamette, looking toward West Linn.

Willamette floodwaters extend more than 1,000 feet from their normal course, in Oregon City.

Willamette flooding in Oregon City.  

Willamette River flooding in Oregon City.

Clackamas River flooding below the Oregon City Bridge.

Clackamas River flooding in Oregon City.

Flooded pump house along the Willamette, Lake Oswego.

Oswego Creek flooding at George Rogers Park, Lake Oswego.

Flooded road along the Tualitan River.

Flooding of Abiquiu Creek, Willamette Valley.

Flooding of Pudding River, Willamette Valley, Oregon.

Flooding of Molalla River, Willamette Valley, Oregon.

Oregon live oak on the cliff above flooded Willamette Falls, near the site where five Cayuse men were wrongly hanged in 1850.

The post Après le Déluge, un Autre Déluge: a Photo Essay appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Temuco, Chile Penitentiary, where many Mapuche political prisoners are being held. Photo: Langellephoto.org (2024)

In Wallmapu, Chile, the situation of Mapuche youths Lientur Millacheo and Jaime Huenchuñir—the first individuals in Chile to be prosecuted under the country’s newly revised Anti-Terrorism Law—has worsened, according to their spokeswomen. Both young men are currently held in the Temuco Penitentiary, where their families report that they have been subjected to torture and what they describe as direct political persecution by the Chilean State.

We spoke with spokeswomen Alen Huenuche and Millaray Huenchuñir, as well as attorney Christian Arancibia, who is supporting the families.

Millacheo and Huenchuñir remain in pretrial detention while prosecutors investigate their case under the new anti-terrorism framework—and could be legally held without trial for up to five years. In response, the Juana Millahual and Taiñ Meli Bolil Mapuche communities have issued a call for national and international solidarity, denouncing what they see as a politically motivated judicial process.

Despite being recognized as Mapuche comuneros (community members), the two youths are being held with the general prison population. According to their spokeswomen, prison authorities have refused to transfer them to the Mapuche module, claiming that they do not meet internal prison requirements.

From Criminal Charges to Political Imprisonment

For the families and their communities, this case goes beyond ordinary criminal prosecution. The spokeswomen argue that the government’s direct involvement has transformed the case into one of political imprisonment:

When the government invokes the anti-terrorism law and files a lawsuit, it becomes political imprisonment. These are not common crimes—they are linked to territorial reclamation and the criminalization of Mapuche resistance.

Attorney Christian Arancibia agrees, describing the case as part of a long-standing pattern of state harassment against Mapuche communities. He contrasts the harsh treatment of Mapuche defendants with the leniency often shown toward individuals accused of economic or corporate crimes.

Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Law: Facing 20 to 40 Years

The application of the Anti-Terrorism Law has had immediate consequences for the youths’ right to due process. According to their spokeswomen, the law allowed prosecutors to delay judicial oversight and restrict transparency:

“Normally, a detention control hearing takes place the next day. Under this law, it was postponed for five days. That gave prosecutors more time to investigate, add charges, and seal the case, preventing public access to the hearing.”

The long-term consequences are even more severe. Under the anti-terrorism framework, prosecutors may extend the investigation for up to five years, and potential sentences range from 20 to 40 years in prison—a prospect that has deeply affected the families of the youths.

According to Radio Biobío, the youths are accused of involvement in an attack on a forestry company, including arson, robbery, and weapons possession. Prosecutors have also alleged—through media statements—that the two are members of the organization Weichan Auka Mapu (WAM), a claim strongly disputed by their defense and communities.

Attorney Christian Arancibia’s Assessment

Attorney Arancibia describes the case as emblematic of a broader state strategy involving prosecutors, courts, police, and the military to systematically persecute and imprison Mapuche people. One of the youths, he notes, is only 20 years old and was still completing secondary school at the time of his arrest.

Arancibia links the militarization of Mapuche territory to counter-insurgency doctrines rooted in the School of the Americas, where social and political dissent is framed as an “internal enemy.” He further points out that under President Gabriel Boric’s prolonged State of Exception—now longer than any period outside the Pinochet dictatorship—civil authority in the Arauco Province (where Mapuche land reclamation efforts have been very strong) has been effectively transferred to the Navy.

This environment, he argues, has enabled widespread abuses and the erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Allegations of Torture, Water Boarding and Unlawful Coercion

One of the most serious elements of the case involves allegations of torture during the youths’ arrest by the Navy and GOPE (Special Police Operations Group). According to Arancibia, their testimony describes treatment reminiscent of methods used during the dictatorship:

They were beaten, had weapons pointed at their faces, shots fired near them, and were subjected to ‘submarine’ torture—having their faces submerged in water to induce drowning—while officers laughed, spat on them, and continued the abuse.

Arancibia believes the severity of the charges is intended to obscure these violations and protect those responsible:

The State intensifies the accusations in order to prevent accountability for torture and unlawful coercion.

A Dangerous Precedent Under the Current Government

The case also sets a troubling legal precedent. Arancibia highlights that the five-day extension of detention was applied without the youths being brought before a judge, something human rights lawyer Carolina Changdescribed as unprecedented under Chilean law—even in anti-terrorism cases.

Following recent reforms under the Boric administration, Arancibia argues that the legal threshold for labeling an act as “terrorist” has been dangerously lowered. He questions why prosecutors chose this path when serious charges such as arson already carry long sentences, concluding that the decision reflects a political motive rather than a legal necessity.

Prison Authorities and the Denial of Mapuche Status

Although the court ordered their transfer to Temuco Prison, prison authorities have refused to place the youths in the Mapuche comunero module. Officials argue that the alleged crimes are not “Mapuche-related” and cite overcrowding.

Arancibia rejects this reasoning, pointing to a fundamental contradiction:

The State applies the anti-terrorism law, yet denies that these youths are political prisoners. Their own communities recognize them as Mapuche—sons, brothers, and grandchildren of Mapuche families, with social, spiritual, and political ties to their people.

Originally published in Spanish in Resumen. Translation by Global Ecology Project. For more information and/or to get involved, please visit: https://globaljusticeecology.org/chile/

Editor’s Note

Wallmapu refers to the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people in southern Chile and Argentina. The Mapuche are the largest Indigenous nation in Chile and have long organized for recognition of their territorial, cultural, and political rights. In recent years, Chilean governments have increasingly applied security and anti-terrorism laws in Mapuche territories, a practice widely criticized by human rights organizations for criminalizing Indigenous land defense and social protest. Much of the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people in Chile was stolen under the Pinochet Dictatorship, deforested, and transformed into industrial plantations of pine and eucalyptus.

The post Chile Applies New Anti-Terrorism Law to Mapuche Youths; Prison Denies Basic Rights appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Temuco, Chile Penitentiary, where many Mapuche political prisoners are being held. Photo: Langellephoto.org (2024)

In Wallmapu, Chile, the situation of Mapuche youths Lientur Millacheo and Jaime Huenchuñir—the first individuals in Chile to be prosecuted under the country’s newly revised Anti-Terrorism Law—has worsened, according to their spokeswomen. Both young men are currently held in the Temuco Penitentiary, where their families report that they have been subjected to torture and what they describe as direct political persecution by the Chilean State.

We spoke with spokeswomen Alen Huenuche and Millaray Huenchuñir, as well as attorney Christian Arancibia, who is supporting the families.

Millacheo and Huenchuñir remain in pretrial detention while prosecutors investigate their case under the new anti-terrorism framework—and could be legally held without trial for up to five years. In response, the Juana Millahual and Taiñ Meli Bolil Mapuche communities have issued a call for national and international solidarity, denouncing what they see as a politically motivated judicial process.

Despite being recognized as Mapuche comuneros (community members), the two youths are being held with the general prison population. According to their spokeswomen, prison authorities have refused to transfer them to the Mapuche module, claiming that they do not meet internal prison requirements.

From Criminal Charges to Political Imprisonment

For the families and their communities, this case goes beyond ordinary criminal prosecution. The spokeswomen argue that the government’s direct involvement has transformed the case into one of political imprisonment:

When the government invokes the anti-terrorism law and files a lawsuit, it becomes political imprisonment. These are not common crimes—they are linked to territorial reclamation and the criminalization of Mapuche resistance.

Attorney Christian Arancibia agrees, describing the case as part of a long-standing pattern of state harassment against Mapuche communities. He contrasts the harsh treatment of Mapuche defendants with the leniency often shown toward individuals accused of economic or corporate crimes.

Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Law: Facing 20 to 40 Years

The application of the Anti-Terrorism Law has had immediate consequences for the youths’ right to due process. According to their spokeswomen, the law allowed prosecutors to delay judicial oversight and restrict transparency:

“Normally, a detention control hearing takes place the next day. Under this law, it was postponed for five days. That gave prosecutors more time to investigate, add charges, and seal the case, preventing public access to the hearing.”

The long-term consequences are even more severe. Under the anti-terrorism framework, prosecutors may extend the investigation for up to five years, and potential sentences range from 20 to 40 years in prison—a prospect that has deeply affected the families of the youths.

According to Radio Biobío, the youths are accused of involvement in an attack on a forestry company, including arson, robbery, and weapons possession. Prosecutors have also alleged—through media statements—that the two are members of the organization Weichan Auka Mapu (WAM), a claim strongly disputed by their defense and communities.

Attorney Christian Arancibia’s Assessment

Attorney Arancibia describes the case as emblematic of a broader state strategy involving prosecutors, courts, police, and the military to systematically persecute and imprison Mapuche people. One of the youths, he notes, is only 20 years old and was still completing secondary school at the time of his arrest.

Arancibia links the militarization of Mapuche territory to counter-insurgency doctrines rooted in the School of the Americas, where social and political dissent is framed as an “internal enemy.” He further points out that under President Gabriel Boric’s prolonged State of Exception—now longer than any period outside the Pinochet dictatorship—civil authority in the Arauco Province (where Mapuche land reclamation efforts have been very strong) has been effectively transferred to the Navy.

This environment, he argues, has enabled widespread abuses and the erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Allegations of Torture, Water Boarding and Unlawful Coercion

One of the most serious elements of the case involves allegations of torture during the youths’ arrest by the Navy and GOPE (Special Police Operations Group). According to Arancibia, their testimony describes treatment reminiscent of methods used during the dictatorship:

They were beaten, had weapons pointed at their faces, shots fired near them, and were subjected to ‘submarine’ torture—having their faces submerged in water to induce drowning—while officers laughed, spat on them, and continued the abuse.

Arancibia believes the severity of the charges is intended to obscure these violations and protect those responsible:

The State intensifies the accusations in order to prevent accountability for torture and unlawful coercion.

A Dangerous Precedent Under the Current Government

The case also sets a troubling legal precedent. Arancibia highlights that the five-day extension of detention was applied without the youths being brought before a judge, something human rights lawyer Carolina Changdescribed as unprecedented under Chilean law—even in anti-terrorism cases.

Following recent reforms under the Boric administration, Arancibia argues that the legal threshold for labeling an act as “terrorist” has been dangerously lowered. He questions why prosecutors chose this path when serious charges such as arson already carry long sentences, concluding that the decision reflects a political motive rather than a legal necessity.

Prison Authorities and the Denial of Mapuche Status

Although the court ordered their transfer to Temuco Prison, prison authorities have refused to place the youths in the Mapuche comunero module. Officials argue that the alleged crimes are not “Mapuche-related” and cite overcrowding.

Arancibia rejects this reasoning, pointing to a fundamental contradiction:

The State applies the anti-terrorism law, yet denies that these youths are political prisoners. Their own communities recognize them as Mapuche—sons, brothers, and grandchildren of Mapuche families, with social, spiritual, and political ties to their people.

Originally published in Spanish in Resumen. Translation by Global Ecology Project. For more information and/or to get involved, please visit: https://globaljusticeecology.org/chile/

Editor’s Note

Wallmapu refers to the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people in southern Chile and Argentina. The Mapuche are the largest Indigenous nation in Chile and have long organized for recognition of their territorial, cultural, and political rights. In recent years, Chilean governments have increasingly applied security and anti-terrorism laws in Mapuche territories, a practice widely criticized by human rights organizations for criminalizing Indigenous land defense and social protest. Much of the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people in Chile was stolen under the Pinochet Dictatorship, deforested, and transformed into industrial plantations of pine and eucalyptus.

The post Chile Applies New Anti-Terrorism Law to Mapuche Youths; Prison Denies Basic Rights appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Gates of the Arctic National Park. Photo: Zach Richter, National Park Service.

Radical? Not me. In a House Natural Resources Committee hearing earlier this year, after one lawmaker finished complaining about “radical environmentalists” a second lawmaker bemusedly opined that no one is just an “environmentalist” anymore; nowadays all environmentalists are radical environmentalists.

Congressional members throwing “radical” around are definitely projecting. To “project” is to unconsciously attribute thoughts and motivations to another instead of acknowledging them as one’s own—often when it might be difficult to accept one’s own qualities, like hypocrisy, duplicity, or greed.

There have always been humans, like me, who appreciate nature-for-nature and not nature-for profit. The far-reaching, extreme action I see—the radical actors, if you will—are the lawmakers wielding the Congressional Review Act (CRA) so a greedy minority can plunder our public lands and leave us to deal with the consequences.

The CRA allows Congress to revoke a new agency regulation (aka a “rule”) with a joint resolution. Once Congress has revoked that regulation and the president has signed the resolution into law, the agency is prohibited from passing a substantially similar regulation to the one just revoked. Only future legislation can override this action.

Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as a negotiated rider to a 1996 budget bill. Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Ted Stevens (R-AK) noted in the Congressional record that they were motivated by “complaints” that Congress was passing progressively complex statutory schemes and delegating federal agencies too wide a latitude in enacting those statutes. Helpfully, they provided not even a single example of their concern manifest.

Since the CRA’s inception, however, we’ve only seen Congress wield it as a partisan sword. This is partly because the CRA requires introducing resolutions to revoke agency rules within 60 legislative or session days after agencies notify Congress about the rule, and there has to be the political clout to pass the resolution—including enough votes to override a veto if one political party doesn’t control Congress and the White House. This tends to happen within the first few months of new Congresses where political power has shifted and a new administration that wasn’t in charge when the agency created the rule.

Sword in hand, Congress cut down its first regulation in 2001, only months into the first George W. Bush administration. Voting largely along party lines, Republicans used the CRA to revoke a Clinton-era regulation designed to minimize on-the-job ergonomic risk factors and reduce preventable injuries. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had studied the topic for 10 years before issuing a regulation—the House voted to extinguish the regulation after just an hour of debate.

The CRA next struck in 2017-2018, when the Republicans once again had unified control of the government. During the first Trump administration, Congress negated sixteen Obama-era regulations with the CRA, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations that banned bear baiting and killing bears and wolves in their dens in national wildlife refuges in Alaska. And when the Democrats swept in with unified control in 2021-2022, they struck down three regulations from the previous administration.

The CRA doesn’t attempt to improve agency action—it is designed to destroy regulations with one final dagger through the heart. Congress can’t tweak a rule—it’s an up-or-down vote.

This year, with power once again unified under one party, Congress applied the CRA to kill three public-land management plans. Notably, Congress has not before this year considered land-management plans as rules or regulations. Applying the CRA to these is a novel application of the law, and also a novel interpretation of a “rule.”

Agencies manage our federal public lands with land-management plans. Agency employees spend years developing the plans and taking public comment on them. Longstanding statutes like the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), both passed in 1976, guide these plans with authorizations and restrictions. They mandate the agencies to manage land for multiple uses with more robust Congressional direction than the CRA’s “Well, we don’t like this” style. Unsurprisingly, land-management plans have many components to achieve multiple goals, permitting activities in certain places while prohibiting them elsewhere. Courts may review these plans to decide whether they comply with environmental laws or whether agencies exceeded their authority under FLPMA or NFMA. While the process certainly isn’t perfect, planning for millions of acres of public land across multiple ecosystems is now at the whim of lawmakers who dislike as little as one plan component.

One of the CRA joint resolutions that Congress has passed and is waiting for the President’s signature nullifies the Central Yukon land-management plan in Alaska, which would have governed over thirteen million acres of land in central and northern Alaska. Three million of those acres were designated as an area of critical environmental concern and overlapped with the Ambler Mining Road proposal, prohibiting it. The Ambler Mining Road would span 211 miles and run adjacent to the Gates of the Arctic Wilderness to connect a mining district to a highway for a private Canadian mining company. The Ambler Road would introduce motorized use to some of America’s wildest public lands. When the President signed H.J.Res. 106 into law on December 11, he removed the administrative hurdle preventing construction of the Ambler Road by obliterating the entire land-management plan. For all public lands, this new application of the CRA injects radical Congressional micro-meddling into agency land-management decisions.

There are lingering questions about how an agency moves forward after Congress strikes with its own extreme prerogative. What else will Congress consider to be “rules?” Can any uses be authorized? Can any uses be restricted? How many components of a plan must change for that plan to clear the CRA’s prohibition on creating a “substantially similar” regulation? Congress has launched us into a labyrinth of uncertainty. If discarding robust land-management plans that were developed with public participation under laws in existence for 50 years isn’t radical, then I don’t know what is.

The post The Congressional Review Act: A New Tool for Lawmakers to Radically Meddle in Public Land Management appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Clifty Coal Power Plant, Madison, Indiana. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

As projections of U.S. electricity demand rise sharply, President Donald Trump is looking to coal – historically a dominant force in the U.S. energy economy – as a key part of the solution.

In an April 2025 executive order, for instance, Trump used emergency powers to direct the Department of Energy to order the owners of coal-fired power plants that were slated to be shut down to keep the plants running.

He also directed federal agencies to “identify coal resources on Federal lands” and ease the process for leasing and mining coal on those lands. In addition, he issued orders to exclude coal-related projects from environmental reviews, promote coal exports and potentially subsidize the production of coal as a national security resource.

But there remain limits to the president’s power to slow the declining use of coal in the U.S. And while efforts continue to overcome these limits and prop up coal, mining coal remains an ongoing danger to workers: In 2025, there have been five coal-mining deaths in West Virginia and at least two others elsewhere in the U.S.

A long legacy

Until 2015, coal-fired power plants generated more electricity than any other type of fuel in the U.S. But with the rapid expansion of a new type of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas became a cheap and stable source for power generation. The prices of solar and wind power also dropped steadily. These alternatives ultimately overcame coal in the U.S. power supply.

Before this change, coal mining defined the economy and culture of many U.S. towns – and some states and regions, such as Wyoming and Appalachia – for decades. And in many small towns, coal-related businesses, including power plants, were key employers.

Coal has both benefits and drawbacks. It provides a reliable fuel source for electricity that can be piled up on-site at power plants without needing a tank or underground facility for storage.

But it’s dirty: Thousands of coal miners developed a disease called black lung. The federal government pays for medical care for some sick miners and makes monthly payments to family members of miners who die prematurely. Burning coal also emits multiple air pollutants, prematurely killing half a million people in the United States from 1999 through 2020.

Coal is dangerous for workers, too. Some coal-mining companies have had abysmal safety records, leading to miner deaths, such as the recent drowning of a miner in a sudden flood in a West Virginia mine. Safety reforms have been implemented since the Big Branch Mine explosion in 2010, and coal miner deaths in the U.S. have since declined. But coal mining remains a hazardous job.

A champion of coal

In both of his terms, Trump has championed the revival of coal. In 2017, for example, Trump’s Department of Energy asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to pay coal and nuclear plants higher rates than the competitive market would pay, saying they were key to keeping the U.S. electricity grid running. The commission declined.

In his second term, Trump is more broadly using powers granted to the president in emergencies, and he is seeking to subsidize coal across the board – in mining, power plants and exports.

At least some of the urgency is coming from the rapid construction of data centers for artificial intelligence, which the Trump administration champions. Many individual data centers use as much power as a small or medium city. There’s enough generation capacity to power them, though only by activating power plants that are idle most of the time and that operate only during peak demand periods. Using those plants would require data centers to reduce their electricity use during those peaks – which it’s not clear they would agree to do.

So many data centers, desperate for 24/7 electricity, are relying on old coal-fired power plants – buying electricity from plants that otherwise would be shutting down.

Limits remain

Despite the Trump adminstration’s efforts to rapidly expand data centers and coal to power them, coal is more expensive than most other fuels for power generation, with costs still rising.

Half of U.S. coal mines have closed within the past two decades, and productivity at the remaining mines is declining due to a variety of factors, such as rising mining costs, environmental regulation and competition from cheaper sources. Coal exports have also seen declines in the midst of the tariff wars.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent effort to follow Trump’s orders and lease more coal on federal lands received only one bid – at a historically low price of less than a penny per ton. But in fact, even if the government gave its coal away for free, it would still make more economic sense for utilities to build power plants that use other fuels. This is due to the high cost of running old coal plants as compared to new natural gas and renewable infrastructure.

Natural gas is cheaper – and, in some places, so are renewable energy and battery storage. Government efforts to prevent the retirement of coal-fired power plants and boost the demand for coal may slow coal’s decline in the short term. In the long term, however, coal faces a very uncertain future as a part of the U.S. electricity mix.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Even With Trump’s Support, Coal Power Remains Expensive and Dangerous appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Clifty Coal Power Plant, Madison, Indiana. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

As projections of U.S. electricity demand rise sharply, President Donald Trump is looking to coal – historically a dominant force in the U.S. energy economy – as a key part of the solution.

In an April 2025 executive order, for instance, Trump used emergency powers to direct the Department of Energy to order the owners of coal-fired power plants that were slated to be shut down to keep the plants running.

He also directed federal agencies to “identify coal resources on Federal lands” and ease the process for leasing and mining coal on those lands. In addition, he issued orders to exclude coal-related projects from environmental reviews, promote coal exports and potentially subsidize the production of coal as a national security resource.

But there remain limits to the president’s power to slow the declining use of coal in the U.S. And while efforts continue to overcome these limits and prop up coal, mining coal remains an ongoing danger to workers: In 2025, there have been five coal-mining deaths in West Virginia and at least two others elsewhere in the U.S.

A long legacy

Until 2015, coal-fired power plants generated more electricity than any other type of fuel in the U.S. But with the rapid expansion of a new type of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas became a cheap and stable source for power generation. The prices of solar and wind power also dropped steadily. These alternatives ultimately overcame coal in the U.S. power supply.

Before this change, coal mining defined the economy and culture of many U.S. towns – and some states and regions, such as Wyoming and Appalachia – for decades. And in many small towns, coal-related businesses, including power plants, were key employers.

Coal has both benefits and drawbacks. It provides a reliable fuel source for electricity that can be piled up on-site at power plants without needing a tank or underground facility for storage.

But it’s dirty: Thousands of coal miners developed a disease called black lung. The federal government pays for medical care for some sick miners and makes monthly payments to family members of miners who die prematurely. Burning coal also emits multiple air pollutants, prematurely killing half a million people in the United States from 1999 through 2020.

Coal is dangerous for workers, too. Some coal-mining companies have had abysmal safety records, leading to miner deaths, such as the recent drowning of a miner in a sudden flood in a West Virginia mine. Safety reforms have been implemented since the Big Branch Mine explosion in 2010, and coal miner deaths in the U.S. have since declined. But coal mining remains a hazardous job.

A champion of coal

In both of his terms, Trump has championed the revival of coal. In 2017, for example, Trump’s Department of Energy asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to pay coal and nuclear plants higher rates than the competitive market would pay, saying they were key to keeping the U.S. electricity grid running. The commission declined.

In his second term, Trump is more broadly using powers granted to the president in emergencies, and he is seeking to subsidize coal across the board – in mining, power plants and exports.

At least some of the urgency is coming from the rapid construction of data centers for artificial intelligence, which the Trump administration champions. Many individual data centers use as much power as a small or medium city. There’s enough generation capacity to power them, though only by activating power plants that are idle most of the time and that operate only during peak demand periods. Using those plants would require data centers to reduce their electricity use during those peaks – which it’s not clear they would agree to do.

So many data centers, desperate for 24/7 electricity, are relying on old coal-fired power plants – buying electricity from plants that otherwise would be shutting down.

Limits remain

Despite the Trump adminstration’s efforts to rapidly expand data centers and coal to power them, coal is more expensive than most other fuels for power generation, with costs still rising.

Half of U.S. coal mines have closed within the past two decades, and productivity at the remaining mines is declining due to a variety of factors, such as rising mining costs, environmental regulation and competition from cheaper sources. Coal exports have also seen declines in the midst of the tariff wars.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent effort to follow Trump’s orders and lease more coal on federal lands received only one bid – at a historically low price of less than a penny per ton. But in fact, even if the government gave its coal away for free, it would still make more economic sense for utilities to build power plants that use other fuels. This is due to the high cost of running old coal plants as compared to new natural gas and renewable infrastructure.

Natural gas is cheaper – and, in some places, so are renewable energy and battery storage. Government efforts to prevent the retirement of coal-fired power plants and boost the demand for coal may slow coal’s decline in the short term. In the long term, however, coal faces a very uncertain future as a part of the U.S. electricity mix.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Even With Trump’s Support, Coal Power Remains Expensive and Dangerous appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Getty and Unsplash+.

The following is an interview with Hans-Josef Fell. Fell is the drafter of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), a law that came into force in Germany 25 years ago and has been copied over 100 times in more than 60 countries. Hans-Josef Fell was a member of the German Bundestag from 1998 to 2013. As a leading climate figure of the Green Party he helped to advance the energy transition in Germany. Today, he is president of the Energy Watch Group and, together with climate activists such as Bill McKibben, an ambassador for 100% renewable energy. Fell has received numerous awards.

David Goeßmann: While greenhouse gases continue to rise to record levels globally, the U.S. is still the second-largest emitter in absolute terms, but with much higher per capita consumption and historical emissions than China. President Donald Trump has reversed the steps toward energy transition initiated under the Biden administration, attacked all environmental protection measures, and issued over 300 new oil and gas drilling permits while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are going up again. In the EU especially the German government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) watered down the EU’s climate targets and undermined the EU’s ban on combustion engines from 2035. In Europe we see a boom of fossil gas and gas-fired power plants while overall ambition on climate is in rollback. How do you assess climate protection in the industrialized world?

Hans-Josef Fell: There is no climate protection worthy of the name in the rich countries, nor globally. The Earth’s temperature is accelerating toward three degrees Celsius by 2050, as new calculations by the German Meteorological Society and the German Physical Society show. The Energy Watch Group has also clearly described this; one only has to extrapolate the current exponentially rising temperature increase path of the last 20 years.

This alarming result is also clear, because as early as 1990, the limit of 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is sustainable for human civilization was exceeded. Today, the atmosphere is already overloaded with almost 430 ppm. An effective climate protection target that could enable the planet, which is already overheated by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius in 2024, to cool down can therefore only be to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (not to be confused with annual emissions!) to below 350 ppm.

This can only be achieved if all emissions are stopped in about two decades and, at the same time, huge amounts of carbon are removed from the atmosphere. The measures mentioned above and many others are irresponsibly counterproductive, as they even reward new increased emissions with tax breaks and, with tax subsidies, even promote the expansion of highly climate-damaging natural gas power plants and natural gas infrastructure. At the same time, these tax breaks for climate polluters place a further burden on the already highly indebted national budget, which could lead to crises that we remember all too well from Greece’s national bankruptcy crisis in 2010.

David Goeßmann: We see in different developed countries that emissions are going down, even in the U.S. the trend since 2005 shows a slight decrease. The EU has a climate goal to be climate neutral by 2050 while the Biden administration at least committed to net zero emissions by mid-century (Trump revoked that). Is that enough, and if not, why not?

Hans-Josef Fell: Since we need to return to 350 ppm in a few decades, climate neutrality in 2045 is far too late and far too weak. In addition to achieving a zero-emission economy, we also need a strong carbon-reducing economy, which can be achieved through reforestation, regenerative agriculture, and marine algae farming.

A zero-emission economy with 100 percent renewable energies and an emission-free circular economy is possible; all the technologies are there. All that is needed is the declared political and social will and strong investment from the financial sector and private individuals. Building an emission-free industry would also boost the economy. However, only China is currently pursuing such a strategy aggressively. In the EU and the US, fossil fuel interests have regained the upper hand.

David Goeßmann: As far as the fossil fuel rollback is concerned, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Agreement under President Donald Trump and did not send an official delegation to COP30, the climate conference in Belém, Brazil. The EU has undermined the so called Green New Deal. You’re often in China. How do you see developments there in terms of climate protection and the energy transition compared to Europe and the U.S.?

Hans-Josef Fell: A zero-emission economy is based on an energy supply that is 100 percent renewable. If we had that globally, about 60 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions would be stopped. China alone—currently still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases—is on an industrial growth path toward this goal. 62 percent of global photovoltaic growth, 71 percent of global wind energy, and about 60 percent of all batteries and electric vehicles were brought to market in China last year. In 2024, more than 90 percent of the solar cells installed worldwide and 70 percent of electric car batteries were produced in China. Investment in clean energy has been growing for years, while production capacities are being expanded. In 2023, investment increased by 40 percent compared to the previous year.

This is the key driver of China’s economic boom, which has been ongoing for years. Europe, with its half-hearted renewable energy policy, and the U.S. under Trump, with its anti-energy transition agenda, are threatening to go into industrial decline. The industry of the near future will be clean, renewable, and emission-free. Those who still insist on subsidizing natural gas, fossil fuel combustion engines, fossil fuel heating systems, and fossil fuel-based industrial production will ultimately lose entire industries to China and end up in the poorhouse.

David Goeßmann: At the moment, we are seeing a backlash against the green transformation in many societies, especially in the rich industrialized countries. Do you nevertheless see positive developments in the global energy transition?

Hans-Josef Fell: Yes, renewable energies are advancing massively worldwide. However, this is being driven primarily by China and increasingly also by BRICS countries other than Russia [the BRICS group includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa]. Those who, like the U.S. and the EU, want to protect their own dirty fossil fuel economy from Chinese dominance with tariffs on solar products or electric cars will only lose market share, as we are already seeing clearly today with the German car manufacturer VW, Daimler, and BMW, which are late to the game and still half-hearted in their commitment to e-mobility.

David Goeßmann: You say that an energy transition can be completed within ten years. Explain how such a rapid transition could take place. What solutions are there and what needs to be done?

Hans-Josef Fell: Until around 2012, we had in Germany about 30 percent annual growth in solar energy, and until 2017, similar growth in wind energy. Had these growth rates in solar expansion not been halted in 2012 in the wake of the devastating amendments to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) by Federal Environment Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU), and then in wind energy from 2017 onwards by Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), Germany could have achieved a full supply of 100 percent green electricity by around 2022 with the corresponding parallel expansion of storage facilities. The increases in natural gas prices as a result of Putin’s war against Ukraine would have had little impact on our economy, energy security would have been very high, the average 81 billion euros in import costs for fossil fuels would have fallen dramatically, and emissions would have been significantly lower.

Today, we must build on the success story of the EEG from 2000 with its basic principles of fixed feed-in tariffs, whereby a modern EEG should also be geared towards system integration into the electricity grid. Then, with the simultaneous expansion of electric heating, e-vehicles, and industrial production, a full supply of 100 percent green electricity can be achieved by 2030. Such a market ramp-up would also give the domestic renewable energy industry a chance and reduce dependence on China.

David Goeßmann: If a rapid transition is possible and even economically advantageous, why is it not being implemented politically? Who is continuing to put the brakes on this?

Hans-Josef Fell: The fossil fuel and nuclear industries have a firm grip on large parts of the media, both traditional and social, and thus also on the political debate. Fake news is constantly being produced, e.g., that renewable energies are driving up electricity prices or that there is a nuclear renaissance in the world. Bavarian prime minister Markus Söder (CSU) recently took the cake by claiming that Germany could support its economy by quickly building small nuclear power plants like those already in operation in Canada. A glance at Canada shows that there are no such small nuclear reactors there, not even under construction. There are only two in the planning stage, and their completion is still up in the air. So even a high ranking politician can lie to the public with impunity.

David Goeßmann: In the broader debate, climate protection is often portrayed as a burden and socially unjust. In your opinion, what is wrong with the way the energy, transport, and agricultural transitions to protect the environment are discussed in the media?

Hans-Josef Fell: From the outset, the fossil fuel industry has managed to defame climate protection as a burden on the economy. However, this only applies to the fossil fuel industry, which will of course have to completely cease its business activities involving oil, gas, and coal. But climate protection is a booster for the clean, emission-free economy, as China is now making abundantly clear.

But even many climate activists have adopted the fossil fuel industry’s framing and talked about burden sharing in climate protection. Spending on renewable energies is not a cost burden, but rather an investment that creates jobs and tax revenue while reducing the costs of damage to health care due to poor air quality or environmental and climate damage. Climate protection is therefore not a burden, but an improvement in prosperity for everyone, except for businesses in the fossil fuel-polluting economy.

David Goeßmann: In recent years, environmental movements and climate activists have developed various strategies to promote more climate protection in countries. At the moment, it has become difficult to put the issue on the agenda. The pandemic, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the rise of right-wing authoritarian parties have dominated the headlines. In your opinion, what strategies make sense to get governments to take climate action?

Hans-Josef Fell: Climate activists must finally free themselves from the narratives of fossil fuel industry representatives and demonstrate that climate protection is an essential contribution to the economy, creates new jobs and industries, reduces the costs of disease and environmental damage, relieves private households of high energy costs, and ultimately slows down the galloping national debt. Furthermore, the lack of climate protection is one of the causes of the major problems that are weighing so heavily on us: increasing refugee movements, famines as a result of crop failures, wars over oil or natural gas, fossil fuels as a means of political blackmail, and much more.

Let us finally stop leaving the debate to the fossil fuel and nuclear climate destroyers, of which the oil and gas industry alone has been making around $2.8 billion in net profits every day for 50 years, ultimately leaving behind more and more poverty, suffering, disease, and a destroyed planet.

The post Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Leading U.S. and EU into Industrial Decline appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Wolf, Lamar Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

For grizzly bears, wolves, lynx, wolverine, and bison there is no “boundary” around Yellowstone National Park. The forests in this area — the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem — extend beyond Yellowstone Park’s boundaries and provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.  Unfortunately, some of these areas are National Forests open to commercial logging and road construction.

Despite the immense value that these public lands have for wildlife, the government recently approved a large-scale clearcutting and road-building operation right next to Yellowstone Park, which was called the South Plateau Project.  In response, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Environmental Law Center, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council for Wildlife and Fish took the agency to court — and we won!  Because of our hard work and determination, we now have a federal court order prohibiting this illegal logging from moving forward.

In the case, the federal court found in part that the agency was breaking federal environmental laws because the agency refused to provide details on precisely where and when it would bulldoze in 56.8 miles of new logging roads to clearcut 16,462 acres (26 square miles) of National Forest. The court found that the Forest Service’s decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act because the agency failed to provide enough information to consider the potential impacts of the roads and logging on species such as grizzlies before the action takes place, as the “look before you leap” law requires.

The court also found the project violated the National Forest Management Act.  Since the agency refused to specify where the project activities would occur, it was impossible to tell if the project complied with mandatory habitat protections from the agency’s own governing land management plan, known as a “forest plan.”  These mandatory protections are in place to ensure that the agency appropriately balances the private profit interests of clearcutting with the need to conserve enough habitat on public land to make sure that endangered species don’t go extinct.

Additionally, the court also found the project violated the Endangered Species Act because the project was not using science as required by law.  As the Court wrote: “In relying on a 10-acre patch size to define grizzly bear secure habitat in the absence of any scientific evidence showing that such acreage provides adequate habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s failed to use the ‘best available science’ in violation of the Endangered Species Act.” As the court further noted:  “grizzly bears in other Ecosystems have been found to need upwards of 2,000 acres of secure habitat . . . .”  A plan that not only has no scientific basis, but is also contrary to all known existing science, cannot and will not conserve endangered species.

There is no doubt that the majority of Americans view the Yellowstone region as a national, natural treasure that should be protected.  Our legal victory in this case is cause for celebration, but it is bittersweet.  This year, Dr. David Mattson, a world-renowned grizzly bear scientist, passed away.  Dr. Mattson was instrumental in our victory in this case, thanks to his compelling scientific research that explains why 10-acre habitat patches for grizzly bears are not adequate for grizzly bear conservation.  We are thankful for his wise counsel, even though he cannot be here to witness the fruits of his labors.

Finally, the government will likely appeal this court order.  Please make a donation so that we can hire the best lawyers to defend our victory and make sure it sticks. In addition other national forests in grizzly habitat use the same illegal definition of secure grizzly habitat but they won’t change it unless we sue them which will cost more money.

The post Conservation Groups Stop Illegal Logging Next to Yellowstone National Park appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

In an executive order issued early last week, Trump took another swipe at Biden-era regulations, specifically changes to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

So what are CAFE standards? You have to go back to the 1970s, when Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The legislation was enacted following an oil embargo set by Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) against the US, a direct retaliation for the US decision to support Israel during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Due to shortages, oil prices skyrocketed, and voters were generally unhappy as they waited in long lines at gas stations. CAFE standards were introduced to reduce US dependence on oil by setting targets that compelled automakers to improve the miles-per-gallon (mpg) performance of their vehicles.

The words “greenhouse gases,” “carbon,” or “global warming” don’t appear in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s text. This is because there are multiple benefits to improving mpg. Only in the last 20 years has the focus of CAFE standards shifted to emphasize reducing carbon emissions. During the Biden administration, the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set new goals of an average of 50.4 mpg for new cars and passenger trucks sold in 2031 and an average of 35 mpg for new heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans sold in 2035. The Environmental Defense Fund projected that the new standards would save vehicle owners money on fuel over the vehicle’s lifespan: $600 for owners of cars and standard pickup trucks, and $700 for owners of heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. The organization also projected that the new standards would save over 70 billion gallons of gasoline by 2050.

But in his executive order, Trump proclaimed that the new standards were impossible to meet, and the NHTSA is proposing drastic reductions (Table 1). In the following table, the percentages represent year-over-year reductions in gallons/mile (the inverse of mpg), indicating that the vehicle consumes less fuel over a given distance.

Source: NHTSA notice of proposed rulemaking.

Here’s the thing: there are vehicles on the market that already achieve the “impossible” Biden-era standards. For reference, according to Consumer Reports, the majority of hybrid electric and gas SUVs in 2025 achieve fuel economy exceeding 35 mpg, and most hybrid sedans surpass 45 mpg. And electric vehicles have fuel efficiency, measured in miles per gallon equivalent (mpge), ranging from 53 to 140 mpge, according to the Department of Energy. Even the Tesla Cybertruck, a model popular with Trump supporters following the president’s appointment of Elon Musk to make the government “more efficient,” achieves 79 mpge.

Were the Biden-era standards an EV mandate, as Trump has claimed? It does appear the Biden administration was promoting cleaner technologies to move the country toward reduced reliance on oil. That is not outside the scope of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, despite Trump’s arguments. And we’ve been moving in that direction with the help of the standards. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 Automotive Trends Report noted that for model year 2023, new vehicle fuel economy increased to a record 27.1 miles mpg. In 1975, it was at 13.1 mpg. The report also notes that between the 2004 model year and 2024, fuel economy rose by 40 percent (7.8 mpg), accompanied by a 31 percent reduction in CO2 emissions.

A Bogus “Affordability” Argument

But Trump is attempting to center his message on affordability. He argues that EV technology increases manufacturers’ costs, which are passed on to consumers. Specifically, under the proposed rule, NHTSA estimates that automakers would save $37.1 billion over the lifetime of the total vehicles produced through 2031 by no longer being required to implement fuel-saving technologies to comply with current standards. That is true: Most new technologies entail increased costs associated with research, development, and implementation. But in the very near future, that won’t be the case. Some analysts have already predicted EVs will be cheaper to manufacture than gas cars by 2027, some of this based on innovations introduced by Trump’s former buddy over at Tesla. We’re already seeing the effect of technological manufacturing innovations on prices. In China, the cost of EVs has been significantly reduced, with some models priced as low as $8,000.

On the other hand, maintaining reliance on oil increases costs for Americans in various ways. From the fluctuating prices at the pump to the environmental costs of extraction and the climate effects of emissions, oil is by far the more expensive option in the long run. Yes, there are costs associated with electricity, but the administration doesn’t appear to be interested in addressing those issues either.

By easing CAFE requirements, the Trump administration is not only slowing the clean energy transition but is also betting against the long-term economic interests of the American people. Stricter CAFE standards have historically driven innovation, prompting manufacturers to invest in and adopt fuel-saving technologies, including hybrid and electric technologies we see today. By relaxing these standards, the administration removes a critical incentive for this progress, potentially leaving American automakers less competitive globally as other nations continue to adopt and legislate for higher efficiency and the deployment of electric technology.

In the end, easing up on CAFE rules gives some parts of the auto industry a quick win on regulations, but it totally misses the bigger picture: we’re losing ground on securing our energy future, protecting the environment, and helping consumers save money. If affordability is the goal, this is the wrong approach.

This first appeared on CEPR.

The post Trump’s CAFE Rollback is a Short-Sighted Bet Against America’s Energy and Economic Future appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.