In a bold move to bolster energy production, President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that could lead to legal challenges against state climate change initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. This order, signed on Tuesday, arrives as demand for electricity in the United States grows, driven by the expansion of artificial intelligence, cloud computing applications, and federal efforts to enhance high-tech manufacturing. Concurrently, “climate superfund” legislation is gaining momentum in various states.
Trump has declared a “national energy emergency,” instructing the Attorney General to take action against states perceived as overreaching their authority in energy regulation. In the executive order, Trump emphasized, “American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities.” This directive places liberal states firmly in the sights of Trump’s Department of Justice, as the focus shifts toward state laws targeting climate change.
Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, expressed that it would be “extraordinarily bold” for the federal government to attempt to overturn a state climate law through the courts. Gerrard mentioned that a potential route for the Justice Department might involve joining ongoing lawsuits where courts are evaluating if states or cities are overstepping their boundaries by holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate change damages.
In response, Democratic governors have expressed their determination to continue combating climate change. California Governor Gavin Newsom accused Trump of reverting to outdated policies and stated that California’s initiatives to reduce pollution would not be hindered by what he described as a “glorified press release masquerading as an executive order.” Meanwhile, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance—a coalition of 22 governors—affirmed their commitment to advancing solutions to the climate crisis.
Climate superfund laws, which are designed to hold major fossil fuel companies financially accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions by contributing to state-based funds, are currently facing legal challenges in states like Vermont and New York. These laws draw inspiration from the decades-old federal superfund law that taxed petroleum and chemical firms to fund the cleanup of polluted sites. Trump criticized these state laws, suggesting they “extort” payments from energy companies and pose a threat to American energy dominance, as well as economic and national security. States such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and California are also considering similar legislative actions.
The American Petroleum Institute, representing the oil and natural gas industries, welcomed Trump’s order, claiming it protects American energy from the so-called “climate superfunds.” The organization stated, “Directing the Department of Justice to address this state overreach will help restore the rule of law and ensure activist-driven campaigns do not stand in the way of ensuring the nation has access to an affordable and reliable energy supply.”
Currently, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are involved in legal action against Vermont, while the lawsuit against New York was initiated by West Virginia alongside multiple coal, gas, and oil interests, as well as 21 other predominantly Republican-led states, including Texas, Ohio, and Georgia. Meanwhile, Make Polluters Pay, a coalition of consumer and anti-fossil fuel groups, condemned Trump’s order and accused fossil fuel magnates of influencing the president to target states. The coalition argued that the order exemplifies “corporate capture of government” and “weaponizes the Justice Department against states that dare to make polluters pay for climate damage.”
Gerrard further noted that the Department of Justice might consider defending fossil fuel industries that are facing lawsuits aiming to impose financial responsibility on them for climate damages, such as wildfires, rising sea levels, and severe storms. These lawsuits include cases brought by Honolulu, Hawaii, and numerous other cities and states. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in related lawsuits brought forward by oil and gas companies and Republican attorneys general from 18 states.
The executive order has sparked discussions across various state Capitols, including Pennsylvania, where the governor faces a legal challenge to new regulations that would make the state the first major fossil fuel producer requiring power plant owners to pay for greenhouse gas emissions. John Quigley, a former Pennsylvania environmental protection secretary and now a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, questioned whether the Department of Justice might begin challenging other state pollution laws. Reflecting on the breadth of the order, Quigley remarked, “This kind of an order knows no bounds. It’s hard to say where this could end up.”