

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Sara Sciammacco, ssciammacco@ewg.org 202-667-6982
Environmental Working Group's latest update of the EWG farm subsidy database shows that 23 members of Congress, or their family members, benefitted from $6,199,807 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2011. The much-referenced database tracks $240 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $37 billion in conservation subsidies paid to farmers in that period.
Environmental Working Group's latest update of the EWG farm subsidy database shows that 23 members of Congress, or their family members, benefitted from $6,199,807 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2011. The much-referenced database tracks $240 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $37 billion in conservation subsidies paid to farmers in that period.
"Members of Congress who receive farm subsidies are part of a system that cries out for reform and poses stark choices between propping up the largest and most successful businesses or helping working farmers, struggling families and the environment," said Craig Cox, senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources at EWG.
According to EWG's analysis of the data, derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture records, among those members of the House of Representatives who received substantial subsidies were:
* Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn. and his wife received $3,528,295
* Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D received $480,790
* Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa received $332,446
The distribution of subsidies among lawmakers reflects the highly distorted distribution of farm subsidies in the U.S. Just five crops - corn, cotton, rice wheat and soybeans - account for 90 percent of all farm subsidies. Since 1995, just 10 percent of subsidized farms have raked in 75 percent of all subsidy payments.
"These farm payments are not improper or illegal, but they do create a conflict of interest for these members of Congress," said Cox. "Some of them are major players in the 2012 farm bill debate and all of these lawmakers will be forced to cast a vote on the final bill."
The recently passed Senate farm bill would do away with the discredited direct payments, which go out regardless of economic need and cost taxpayers $5 billion a year. However, it includes a provision to replace those wasteful subsidies with another potentially more expensive entitlement that would guarantee income for the same farm businesses that have benefitted from the lion's share of traditional farm subsidies.
The same congressional families that benefitted from farm subsidies have likely received crop insurance premium subsidies too. That question cannot be answered until Congress changes the law that bars the federal government from releasing recipients' names. An EWG analysis found that 26 policyholders nationwide each received more than $1 million in premium subsidies and more than 10,000 policyholders each received $100,000 or more in 2011. With the identities of individuals cloaked, it is not possible to establish the extent to which members of Congress and their families reaped crop insurance subsidies.
"We are deeply disturbed by the public's inability to see who gets what when it comes to taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies," said Scott Faber, EWG vice president of government affairs. "The names of recipients should not be a state secret."
EWG supported a farm bill amendment introduced by Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and John McCain, R-Ariz. that would have lifted the veil of secrecy that has protected crop insurance subsidy recipients' identities for more than a decade, but it was never considered on the Senate floor.
"House lawmakers have a real opportunity to increase government transparency and make meaningful reforms that will create a safety net for working family farmers who need the help and will improve America's diets and protect the environment," Faber said.
Members of Congress who have received checks from the federal government include:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (in alphabetical order)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Aderholt's wife, Caroline Aderholt, is a 6.3 percent owner of McDonald Farms according to ownership records as of 2008. McDonald Farms received a total of $3,262,386 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. She received $1,101 in commodity subsidies directly between 2009 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidies to Caroline Aderholt, using the percentage share information received by USDA, comes to $206,631.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa)
Boswell is listed as directly receiving a total of $16,235 in subsidies between 2001 and 2008.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.)
Campbell is listed as a 1.5 percent owner of the Campbell/McNee Family Farm LLC according to ownership records as of 2008. The farm received a total of $16,876 in federal farm subsidies between 2007 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Campbell received, based on the percentage share, is $253.
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Costa is listed as a 50 percent owner of Lena E Costa Living Trust, which received $2,494 in federal farm subsidies between 2006-2007.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Costa received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $1,247 between 2006 and 2007.
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)
Farenthold received a total of $1,205 in farm subsidies directly from USDA between 1999 and 2005.
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)
Fincher is listed as directly receiving a total of $114,519 from USDA between 1995 and 1999. Fincher's farm, Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms, is also listed in the EWG database as receiving a total of $3,413,776 between 1999 and 2011. Fincher and his wife Lynn are each 50 percent partners in that farm.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Fincher and his wife received totaled $3,528,295 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
Hartzler is listed in the EWG Farm Subsidy Database, but no subsidies were directly paid to her. Her husband, Lowell Hartzler is listed as 98 percent owner of Hartzler Farms, which received a total of $820,768 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. His ownership percentage rose from 53 percent in the years up to 2005 to 98 percent in 2006.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lowell Hartzler received, based on the percentage share information (assumed to be 53 percent prior to 2006) supplied to USDA, totaled $514,645 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.)
Holt is listed as a 10.5 percent owner of Froelich Land Trust No. 1, which received at total of $34,623 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. Holt's wife, Margaret Lancefield, is listed as a 25 percent owner of Lancefield Farm, which received a total of $24,681 in subsidies between 1996 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Holt received, using the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $9,806 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kan.)
Huelskamp is listed as directly receiving $258 in 2002.
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.)
Kline's wife, Vicky Sheldon Kline, is listed as a 20 percent owner of Sheldon Family Farms LP, which received a total of $29,717 between 2000 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Ms. Kline received, based on the percentage share information supplied to USDA, is a total of $5,943 between 2000 and 2011.
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Latham is listed as part owner of four entities: 33 percent owner of Latham Seed Co., which received a total of $448,925 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2003; 25 percent owner in Latham Hospital Farm, which received a total of $76,612 between 1995 and 2001; 25 percent owner in Latham Kanawha Farm, which received a total of $15,648 between 1995 and 2001; and 3 percent owner in DTB Farms LLC, which received a total of $552,017 between 2003 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Latham received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $332,446 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Lummis is listed as a 31.3 percent owner of Lummis Livestock, which received a total of $47,093 in farm subsidies in between 1996 and 2002. Lummis listed her ownership of Lummis Livestock in her 2009 financial disclosure form.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lummis received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $14,289 between 1996 and 2002.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
Neugebauer is involved in two business entities. He owns 50 percent of Lubbock Land Company Five LTD, which received a total of $3,369 in farm subsidies between 1998 and 2003. He also owns 50 percent of Lubbock Land Company Two LTD, which received a total of $4,608 in farm subsidies in between 1998 and 1999. Neugebauer's financial disclosure forms for 2009 do not list either company.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Neugubauer received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $3,989 between 1998 and 2003.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
Noem is listed as having a 13.5 percent share in Racota Valley Ranch between 2000 and 2001 and a 16.9 percent share between 2002 and 2008. Racota Valley Ranch received a total of $3,198,617 in farm subsides between 1995 and 2011. Noem's 2009 financial disclosure form listed her as a partner in Racota Valley Ranch.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Noem received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is $480,790.
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Peterson is listed as receiving a total of $828 between 2005 and 2009.
Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.)
Rehberg received a total of $7,971 directly from USDA between 1995 and 2002. Rehberg's wife, Jan Rehberg, also received $1,455 directly from USDA between 2008 and 2011. Jan Rehberg also has ownership in two entities that received payments. She has a 33 percent stake in Lenhardt Property LP, which received a total of $1,039 between 2006 and 2011. She also has a 5.6 percent stake in Teigen Land and Livestock Company, which received a total of $31,890 between 2002 and 2003.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Rehberg and his wife received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $11,418 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)
Stutzman is listed as directly receiving a total of $190,226 in farm subsidies between 1997 and 2011.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas)
Thornberry listed as William M. Thornberry, directly received a total of $4,306 in farm subsidies from USDA between 1995 and 1999. Thornberry is also a one-third owner of Thornberry Brothers, which received a total of $76,401 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. His financial disclosure form in 2009 lists him as an owner in Thornberry Brothers Cattle.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Thornberry received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $29,773 between 1995 and 2011.
US SENATE (in alphabetical order)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
Bennet's wife, Susan Daggett, is listed in his 2010 financial disclosure forms as 5.5 percent owner of Daggett Farms LP and LMD Farms LP. Daggett Farms LP received a total of $268,969 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Daggett received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $20,419 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Grassley is listed as directly receiving a total of $316,535 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Lugar is listed as a 9.39 percent owner of Lugar Stock Farm. His wife, Charlene Smeltzer , is listed as a 7.42 percent owner in Lugar Stock Farm. Lugar Stock Farm received a total of $168,343 in farm subsidies in between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lugar and his wife received totals $28,304 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Tester received a total of $177,744 directly from USDA between 1995 and 2011. Testers' wife, Sharla, is listed as a 50 percent owner of T-Bone Farms - Tester is listed as owning the other 50 percent. T-Bone farms received a total of $306,638 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Tester and his wife received, based on percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $484,382 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
EWG'S estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Hatch and his wife received, based on the share information provided to USDA regarding Ms. Hatch's share of Edries N Hansen Properties LLC which received $189,026 in subsidies between 2008 and 2011, is a total of $1,890 between 2008 and 2011.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.
“Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill," one advocate said.
State leaders and environmental advocates responded with outrage after the Trump administration on Friday ordered the restarting of a California pipeline that caused one of the largest oil spills in the state's history, a move that comes as oil prices have skyrocketed following President Donald Trump's launching of an illegal war against Iran and Iran's subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
After Trump issued an executive order on Friday authorizing the Department of Energy (DOE) to ramp up oil and gas development under the Defense Production Act, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations on the Santa Ynez Unit and Pipeline System, which include an offshore rig and a network of offshore and onshore pipelines along the Santa Barbara coast. Among them is a pipeline that ruptured in 2015, spilling around 450,000 gallons of oil into Refugio State Beach and killing hundreds of marine mammals and sea birds.
“Californians have repeatedly rejected dangerous drilling off our coast for decades," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Now, after dragging the US into a war with Iran and driving up oil prices, the Trump administration is trying to exploit this crisis to further enrich the oil industry at the expense of our communities and our environment."
In his statement, Wright emphasized the defense benefits of resuming drilling, arguing that "today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal."
The DOE added that "Sable's facility can produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day, a 15% increase to California’s in-state oil production, that can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month."
Yet, far from a novel response to an unexpected emergency, the order is actually an escalation in a preexisting battle between California and the Trump administration over the future of the pipeline system. The state's Attorney General Rob Bonta sued to stop the administration from a federal takeover of two of the pipelines in January.
Sable also faces several lawsuits due to its attempts to restart the system after it purchased it from ExxonMobil in 2024, and has not yet cleared all of the state permitting requirements, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
"In its latest brazen abuse of power, the Trump administration is attempting to seize exclusive federal control over two of California’s onshore pipelines," Bonta said on social media Friday evening. "We will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against Wright's announcement.
"Trump knew his war with Iran would raise gas prices," he wrote on social media. "Now he wants to illegally resurrect a pipeline shut down by courts and facing criminal charges. And it won't even cut prices. I refuse to let Trump sacrifice Californians, our environment, or our $51 billion coastal economy."
The Center for Biological Diversity noted that this order would mark the first time that the Defense Production Act was used to force an oil company to restart out-of-use Infrastructure and to disregard the state permitting process.
“This is a revolting power grab by an extremist president. Trump is misusing this Cold War-era law just to help a Texas oil company skirt vital state laws that protect our coastline, and Californians will pay the price,” Talia Nimmer, an attorney for the center, said. “Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill. Overriding state law to let an oil company restart pipelines sets a radically dangerous precedent. It’s clear that no state is safe from Trump.”
The center also promised to push back against the order.
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal,” Nimmer said. “We’re exploring all legal avenues. This dangerous action should be swiftly blocked by the courts.”