January, 30 2017, 02:30pm EDT
Trump Orders Massive Rollback of Environmental Protections
Order Contains Dangerous, Illegal Requirement to Cut Two Rules for Every New One
WASHINGTON
In a major effort to dismantle environmental protections, President Donald Trump today signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to repeal two regulations before implementing a new rule.
This unprecedented and illegal restriction would hamstring every federal agency's efforts to implement laws and dramatically curtail the federal government's ability to protect human health, wildlife and the environment from emerging threats.
"This new policy is as dumb as it gets," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "How does this 'one-step-forward-two-steps-back' order work? So you'll protect my drinking water but only in exchange for allowing oil drilling in national parks and more lead in my paint?"
Today's order has drastic consequences. For example, if an agency like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to protect a species from being wiped out from poaching, it wouldn't be able to take any steps until it removed two rules protecting other animals from extinction. It would be the same for rules protecting people, air and water from pollution or pesticides. Agencies entrusted with protecting people, animals, public lands and natural resources will be unable to carry out their duties.
"Trump is again demonstrating that he has no interest in governing this nation for the benefit of its people or to protect our environment," said Suckling. "Instead, he's fixated on realizing the fantasies of the most unhinged, right-wing extremists and profiteers who view government protections as nothing more to an impediment to their profits. We will fight this dangerous and nonsensical executive order in court anywhere it rears its ugly head."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
As Trump Discovers Gas Price Gouging, Democrats Offer a Solution: Tax Big Oil
"Mr. President: I have a windfall excess profits bill you could support," said one Democratic senator.
Jun 24, 2026
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he has directed the US Department of Justice to investigate fossil fuel companies for not lowering gasoline prices as the cost of oil declines amid the prospect of an end to the Iran War.
"The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil. Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being 'gouged,'" Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this," he added. "Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!"
While benchmark West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude oil prices have fallen to their lowest levels since Trump launched the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran on February 28, the average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States was $3.93 per gallon on Wednesday, around one-third higher than it was the day before the war started but down from a high of $4.52 a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association.
"The price of fuel is not only a national security issue, it impacts the wallet of every American," an unnamed Trump administration official told ABC News on Wednesday following the president's post. "We will always commit to ensuring affordability in this nation."
Responding to Trump's post, US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted on social media that he has a solution for Big Oil price gouging.
In March, Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act “to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump.”
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax “equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits.”
Democrats in both chambers of Congress have also called for the prosecution of corporations that use the war as a pretext for price gouging.
Polling has shown that Americans largely support a tax on Big Oil windfall profits, which, according to The Guardian, amounted to $23 billion in the first month of the war alone—or $30 million per hour.
NEW: As Americans face rising oil costs, Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner has released an energy plan aiming to “End Big Oil Price Gouging.”We find voters support key elements of the plan, including an oil windfall tax to freeze or lower electricity rates.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) June 18, 2026 at 11:49 AM
Trump has been a staunch supporter of fossil fuel companies. While running for reelection on a "drill, baby, drill" energy platform, he reportedly promised Big Oil executives that he would eviscerate climate regulations enacted by the Biden administration if they gave $1 billion to his campaign.
Fossil fuel interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign contributions, lobbying, and efforts supporting Republican causes and candidates, including Trump.
As pump prices soared and Americans suffered amid Trump's war, the president—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said that “when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
Last week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that Americans have paid nearly $54 billion extra for gas and fuel—more than $400 per household—than they would have if the war never happened.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Totally Crazy': Trump Holds Bipartisan Housing Bill Hostage to Push Evisceration of Voting Rights
"Trump just threw a tantrum," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Jun 24, 2026
Congress this week passed a bipartisan bill "to build more housing, lower costs, and stop private equity's housing grab," as US Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted after the final vote, but President Donald Trump on Wednesday scrapped his plans to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act over a stalled GOP attack on voting rights.
Trump initially took a swipe at Warren (D-Mass.) on his Truth Social platform Wednesday morning, writing that "the Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren centric housing bill, which is of minor importance compared to lower interest rates, and even FISA, pales in comparison to passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about."
"Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF," Trump continued. "The Dumocrats will do it in hour one, 100%. Republicans will feel very stupid if they don’t do it first. I'll be watching with tears in my eyes!!!"
Less than an hour later, he added, "Today's Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
Trump and other backers of the anti-voter bill argue it is needed to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting in US elections—which is already illegal, and research shows is remarkably rare. Critics warn that the legislation would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack access to proof-of-citizenship documents.
While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) responded by stressing that he and other Republicans in the House of Representatives support the SAVE America Act, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the canceled ceremony was Trump's "call to make" but expressed hope that he'll "find his way to sign" the housing bill, other lawmakers—including Warren—and supporters of the legislation took aim at the president over his move.
"Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum," Warren wrote on social media. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections. Nope—I'll keep fighting to lower housing costs."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told journalists that "Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people," and urged the president not to veto the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
Approved by the Senate in an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday, the bill contains dozens of provisions to promote the rebuilding of older homes and development of vacant buildings, encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulations for construction, ban corporate investors from buying single-family homes to rent out, and more.
Stressing that the bill passed "overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way," and would "save American families a lot of money when it comes to housing," Sen. Andy Kim (D-Calif.) said that "I honestly can't believe that the president is holding this hostage."
"I hope the American people see this for what it is, which is that he doesn't care at all about the high cost of living that a lot of Americans are struggling with," Kim declared. "He doesn't care about the housing crisis. He is just continuing to push forward on his extreme agenda."
In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) replied to the president: "The housing crisis is a national emergency. Do something to make life more affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. Sign the bill."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to Trump's campaign pledges, writing: "The president who promised lower costs on Day 1 is refusing to sign the largest housing affordability bill in a generation. It's a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to afford a place to live. My Republican colleagues need to find some courage and stand up to this mad king."
In a video, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) warned the public that Trump "is taking away your housing for his personal projects that can never pass and are unconstitutional."
Longtime human rights advocate Kenneth Roth, who's now a visiting professor at Princeton University, similarly summarized: "Trump to America: I [couldn't] care less about affordable housing. So I won't sign a bill to advance it unless Congress endorses my autocratic efforts to restrict the right to vote."
Although Trump has not decisively said whether he will formally block the bill, Roth wondered, "Will the Republicans have the backbone to override his veto?"
Either way, The New York Times noted that "Trump's decision threatened to deprive Republicans, in particular, of an opportunity to showcase a legislative success in a year with very few of them—one that spoke directly to voters' economic concerns."
In a Wednesday statement, Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, looked to the midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress.
"Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority—not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads," said Edkins. "Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it."
"Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own," he added. "Trump could've signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something—anything—to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It's selfish, petty, and self-defeating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Warnings of Atrocities in Sudan, Van Hollen Says Senate 'Missed Opportunity' to Cut Off Arms to UAE
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan," the senator said. "We should actually be using our leverage."
Jun 24, 2026
After the US State Department warned earlier this week of imminent “atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday criticized the US Senate for missing a recent opportunity to cut off weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which has supplied the genocidal paramilitary group.
On Monday, the State Department warned that RSF forces were massing near the city of El-Obeid and could commit “mass atrocities” against civilians if allowed to take the city.
"The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure that those seeking safety can do so without fear or obstruction," the department said.
The statement echoed concerns expressed last week by a coalition of states at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said that roughly 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people, could be at risk of violence if RSF escalated its assault.
UN human rights experts have said RSF's October offensive in Darfur bore the "hallmarks of genocide," with more than 6,000 people killed and numerous civilians tortured, raped, and starved during a three-day rampage across the city of El-Fasher.
But while Trump's State Department has sanctioned some entities accused of supplying fighters for the RSF, the Monday statement made no mention of the UAE, which rights groups point out is the group’s principal foreign backer.
A report issued last year by Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) found that the UAE was continuing to provide weapons to the RSF despite telling the US that it was not.
Following previous failed attempts at pushing Congress to impose an arms embargo on Sudan through standalone legislation, Van Hollen attempted to do so again last week by tacking a pair of amendments onto the bipartisan PEACE in Sudan Act, which requires the State Department to assess designating armed Sudanese groups as terrorists and allows Trump to impose optional sanctions on foreign actors funding the war, but stopped short of introducing any hard leverage.
At a markup session for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Van Hollen introduced an amendment banning the US from selling or transferring military equipment to the UAE as long as it continues supporting the RSF. The amendment failed in a 15-7 vote, with four Democrats—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (Nev.)—joining every Republican on the committee, aside from Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), in opposition.
A second amendment, which did not single out the UAE specifically but restricted arms sales to any country arming either side of the conflict, also failed 13-9, but received support from Shaheen and Rosen.
Coons said he'd have "enthusiastically" supported the amendment, but voted no because he believed it would "bring down" the broader Sudan bill in a GOP-controlled Senate. Duckworth did not explain her reasoning for voting no.
In light of the State Department's warning this week about RSF's march toward El-Obeid, Van Hollen told a Drop Site News reporter on Tuesday that he believed the no vote on his amendments "was a missed opportunity."
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan. We should actually be using our leverage," he said.
Noting that Trump likely would not support a restriction on arms to the UAE given his extensive financial entanglements with the Emiratis and his previous policy of fast-tracking weapons to the country without any strings attached, Van Hollen said his goal was simply to "keep the pressure on."
He said, "We need to keep showing the hypocrisy of the Trump administration policy, where they claim they want to do something but refuse to take some of the basic actions we can take as a country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular