SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
army corps of engineers
Russell Vought Shuts Down Another $11 Billion Worth of Projects in Blue Cities
The administration had already paused more than $28 billion worth of infrastructure funding, virtually all to Democratic congressional districts.
Oct 17, 2025
Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget announced Friday that he would cut another $11 billion from federal projects in blue cities.
"The Democrat shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to manage billions of dollars in projects," Vought wrote on social media. "The Corps will be immediately pausing over $11 billion in lower-priority projects and considering them for cancellation, including projects in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore."
Vought's post did not specify which projects would be halted, stating that more information would be "soon to come" from the Army Corps of Engineers. Many of the Corps' major projects involve infrastructure and water maintenance, as well as environmental restoration and cleanup efforts.
As the government shutdown enters its third week, the Trump administration has plainly stated its goal of using it to punish Democrats and liberal cities. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that of the more than $28 billion worth of projects frozen during the shutdown, $27.24 billion of it has come from Democratic-leaning congressional districts.
Among those frozen funds are $18 billion for infrastructure projects in New York City, including the Hudson River Tunnel and Second Avenue Subway, and $8 billion slated for climate-related projects exclusively in blue states.
Vought, an architect of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda, has also been in charge of President Donald Trump's efforts to use the shutdown to carry out mass layoffs of federal workers. A federal judge halted that effort Wednesday, describing it as "both illegal and in excess of authority and... arbitrary and capricious." Prior to the ruling, Trump had said that those laid off by his administration were "gonna be Democrats.”
This is not the first time the administration has used the Army Corps of Engineers as a political tool. As Aidan Quigley, a reporter for Roll Call, noted on social media, it "has been prioritizing red states over blue states for Army Corps of Engineers projects under the current continuing resolution."
He reported that in the 2025 full-fiscal year stopgap spending law signed in March, "nearly two-thirds of Army Corps of Engineers construction funding is going to red states, a sizable shift from former President Joe Biden’s final budget request and the initial fiscal 2025 House and Senate Energy-Water appropriations bills, which were all closer to an even split."
The report noted that "funding for projects in California, which would have received over $125 million in Biden’s budget request and both chambers’ appropriations bills, has been zeroed out under the new corps work plan."
Brendan Duke, the senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, pointed out that the Trump administration's shutdown plan published last month stated that the Corps' projects would not be affected by the shutdown because 97% of their funding does not come from annual appropriations.
"Why on Earth would any projects need to be paused, much less considered for cancellation?" he asked.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Threat Is Extremely Real': Advocates Sound Alarm Over Trump 'Energy Emergency'
"We truly urge policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to see these executive orders for what they truly are: an unnecessary and counterproductive retreat to outdated energy strategies."
Mar 19, 2025
On the first day of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he was fulfilling his campaign promise to "drill, baby, drill" by declaring a "national energy emergency." The declaration seeks to spur the "identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation" of every energy source except for wind, solar, battery storage, and improved efficiency.
But what exactly does this mean, and how much damage could it do to local communities, energy prices, the global climate, and the nation's leadership in the green energy transition? Quite a lot, a panel of energy policy experts warned on Wednesday.
"These executive orders and this administration are sending us down exactly the wrong path," said senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center Megan Gibson. "By attempting to fabricate a national energy emergency, these orders set the stage toward increased fossil fuel extraction, transmission, use, and export. This is all over cleaner, more affordable technologies that we have and are commercially scalable."
The National Security Justification
Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, warned that "the threat is extremely real, and here right now, that Trump is going to seek to push unneeded fossil fuel projects."
Trump gave himself a major tool to accomplish this in the declaration by evoking national security. Specifically, Section 7 orders Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to conduct an assessment of the department's access to the energy needed to "protect the homeland" and present it within 60 days, or by March 21. The report should examine any vulnerabilities, with a special emphasis on the Northeast and West Coast, where local and state Democratic governments have rejected new fossil fuel projects on climate grounds.
While Trump tried to use national security justifications to speed fossil fuel development during his first term, he was stymied in part by opposition within government agencies. That is less likely to be the case now.
"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line."
"He has now purged agencies of opposition and has much firmer control over the national security apparatus that he's going to need to use national security justifications for this energy emergency declaration," Slocum said.
Therefore, Hegseth's report could be used to, for example, claim that the energy needs of military bases in the Northeast require the revival of the Constitution pipeline that would bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York, which state leaders had previously rejected.
"This is about a larger issue of attacking parts of the country that didn't vote for him and parts of the country that also have enacted a number of laws and regulations promoting action on climate change and promoting renewables," Slocum said. "And so this is part of a general attack on state leadership of those states that he sees as not being accommodating enough to fossil fuels."
At the same time, the emergency declaration could be used as part of a negotiating tactic with Democratic state leaders. To take New York as an example again, Trump might persuade Gov. Kathy Hochul to accept the Constitution pipeline in exchange for allowing offshore wind or ending opposition to congestion pricing.
"Trump will either force his agenda upon unwilling states, or he will use it as a club to bully them into doing it as part of a horse-trading maneuver," Slocum said.
Using the national security justification could also make it easier for the administration to crack down on not only civil society protests against these projects, but stubborn opposition from local leaders as well. Even elected officials who pushed back, Slocum warned, could be labeled terrorists.
"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line," he said.
Cutting Corners
Another provision of the emergency declaration being monitored by advocates is Section 4, which calls on heads of agencies to alert the Army Corps of Engineers to projects they want to see prioritized. The Corps plays an important role in issuing 404 permits for any infrastructure that is built through or beneath a body of water. It also has the authority to rush its permitting process—including by waving or truncating a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review—in the case of an emergency.
Shortly after Trump's declaration, the Army Corps listed several "emergency"-designated projects on its website. However, David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, pointed out, "none of those projects, not a single one, meets the Corps' own definition of what an emergency is."
The Corps can rush a project through only if not doing so poses an immediate threat to life, property, or economic well-being, and it has historically only done so in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes.
"In the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"
"No one has ever tried to speed up permitting on the basis of a national energy emergency, let alone a clearly fictitious one," Bookbinder said.
The Army Corps immediately removed the emergency designations of projects on its website once they were discovered, and groups including Bookbinder's have filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Corps to find out what projects other agencies have told it to fast-track. Those requests are due around the beginning of April.
"As soon as they try permitting one of these projects, cutting the corners and speeding up a permit by designating it as, quote, an emergency, that permit will be challenged," Bookbinder said. "And in the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"
In the long-term, advocates say, the administration may attempt to use the Corps' ability to rush "emergency" projects in order to bypass NEPA altogether, ignore court orders that try to stop it, and undermine agencies that push back. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is supposed to be independent, for example, Trump on Tuesday fired the two Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission.
"We are very concerned that should Trump perceive any roadblocks at FERC to his energy emergency declaration that he would have no qualms forcibly removing independent FERC commissioners from their seats and replace them with compliant commissioners," Slocum said. "So this is not bluster."
Ultimately, Slocum added, "we are in an era right now where the only norm is Trump is going to violate it."
Who Benefits?
While the Trump administration is trying to rush through fossil fuel projects, the panelists were clear that his energy agenda will not benefit the majority of U.S. communities and ratepayers.
"If we continue down this path, this self-destructive path, we will miss out on an opportunity to build a vibrant, sustainable energy economy that benefits all Americans, that will actually secure our national energy independence, and would position our country for long-term economic success," Gibson said.
So who will benefit? The clue comes in part in a closed-door meeting the Trump administration held with oil and gas executives in the White House, also on Wednesday.
"Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming."
"After spending $450 million in the last election to elect Trump and install friendly lawmakers on Capitol Hill, fossil fuel executives are getting what they paid for," Slocum said in a statement about the meeting. "We know precisely what the oil industry will do with decreased costs stemming from Trump's deregulation: They will pocket the savings and shower executives and wealthy investors with bonuses and dividends."
"Under Trump, fossil fuel corporations will accelerate the transfer of wealth from consumers to billionaires while exposing millions of Americans to more pollution and delaying the transition to clean energy for as long as possible," he continued.
Slocum further told Common Dreams that "the fossil fuel industry's close ties to Trump and key Trump officials will play a role in decisions Trump has made and will continue to make on the energy emergency declaration and implementation."
Gibson said the emergency declaration was "perpetuating a pattern where major fossil fuel corporations reap substantial profits while the American public and communities have to deal with rising energy prices, higher utility bills, a weakened domestic energy system, not to mention extreme and lasting harms to our communities and our health."
In response, she called on "unlikely partners and coalitions to push for a modern, democratically grounded energy policy that benefits the public."
'It's essential that we continue to hold regulators accountable: Many of FERC's decisions have disregarded states' and communities' objections. Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming," she said.
"We truly urge policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to see these executive orders for what they truly are: an unnecessary and counterproductive retreat to outdated energy strategies," Gibson said. "The real emergency here isn't a lack of fossil fuel extraction, transmission, or export. It's lack of vision and courage, and competent governance to embrace the modern clean energy economy we know we need and deserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Moves to Fast-Track 100+ Dirty Fossil Fuel Permits Under 'Fake' Energy Emergency
"Trump's promise to cut Americans' energy bills is a lie," said one campaigner.
Feb 19, 2025
With more than 100 permits for oil pipeline projects and gas-fired power plants likely to be fast-tracked under U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called "energy emergency" declaration, consumer advocates on Wednesday called on lawmakers and state officials to stand up to the president's "bullying" and block his efforts to build pollution-causing fossil fuel projects—and slow clean energy progress.
"Trump's declaration of a sham energy emergency attempts to set into motion the weaponization of national security law to dismantle generations of public health and safety protections," said Tyler Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "The ultrawealthy fossil fuel executives who donated huge sums to Trump's campaign see this fraudulent emergency declaration as an opportunity to destroy the remarkable progress of wind and solar development, while maximizing fossil fuel exports and domestic consumption."
Trump signed a day-one executive order claiming that the U.S. faces an "energy emergency" and must "unleash" fossil fuel production—which has already been on the rise in recent years despite clear warnings from scientists that oil, gas, and coal extraction must end in order to avoid catastrophic planetary hearing.
"Trump's national energy emergency is a sham."
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cited that order in recent days when it created a new "emergency" designation for infrastructure project permits, paving the way for officials to push forward nearly 700 pending applications, including more than 100 for fossil fuel projects.
Clean Water Action told The New York Times that one major project it has fought against, Canadian firm Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which the company wants to build under the Mackinac Straits, could threaten the Great Lakes and tens of millions of people who rely on them for drinking water.
"If this is pushed through on an emergency permit, the implications of an oil spill if there's an explosion or something during tunnel construction is that over 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline could be at risk," Sean McBrearty, Michigan policy director for Clean Water Action, told the Times.
"If approved, this project will risk our fresh water and the millions of people who rely on it for drinking, jobs, and tourism in exchange for a foreign oil company's profits," added McBrearty.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)—who earlier this month introduced a resolution challenging Trump's emergency declaration—held a Capitol Hill press conference with environmental leaders.
"We are producing more energy now than at any other point in our history, and the U.S. is the envy of the world when it comes to energy innovation and production," Kaine said at the event. "The passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act have accelerated clean energy projects and created jobs, and we are on an amazing trajectory."
"Trump's sham emergency threatens to screw all of that up," Kaine added. "Why? Because he'd rather benefit Big Oil and suspend environmental protections than lower costs and create jobs for the American people. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to terminate President Trump's emergency."
Heinrich said: "Trump's fake emergency declaration is causing enormous uncertainty. If you're thinking about opening a new factory, you don't know what your tax structure will be in the next 12 months. If you're trying to site and build a new transmission line, the federal agencies you work with just had a ton of their expert staff sacked, making it more difficult to get a permit."
"This is going to kill skilled trades jobs and drive up the cost of your electricity bills by as much at $480 a year by 2030," the senator added. "Trump's war on affordable, American-made energy is killing jobs and raising costs on working families."
Slocum urged senators to back Kaine and Heinrich's resolution.
"Trump's promise to cut Americans' energy bills is a lie, as every action under the fraudulent energy emergency would subject Americans to higher energy burdens," he said on Wednesday. "Having senators support Senate Joint Resolution 10 is a first step, but every governor of states in the Northeast and West Coast targeted by Trump's phony emergency order needs to stand up to his bullying."
The headline of this article has been changed to reflect that President Donald Trump's executive order moved to expedite the permit approval process rather than fast-tracking projects.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Indigenous Tribes Lead DC Rally to Shut Down Dakota Access Pipeline
"The injustices of the Dakota Access Pipeline are many, including an assault on Indigenous rights and the right to defend our lands, waters, and communities," said one campaigner.
Jun 11, 2024
Indigenous campaigners, climate action groups, and other environmental justice advocates converged in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to amplify the message they have aimed to send to the federal government for more than eight years, since they led a historic, monthslong mass civil disobedience action in 2016 with tens of thousands of supporters in an effort to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe organized Tuesday's rally, calling on President Joe Biden and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to revoke all permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and end operations for a project that transports 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day nearly 1,200 miles, running just a mile upstream from the Standing Rock reservation.
The rally comes nine months after the ACOE released an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the pipeline, which is in operation despite lacking a permit to cross land adjacent to and beneath Lake Oahe, the main drinking water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
The EIS included a number of alternative measures the ACOE could take aside from keeping DAPL in operation, including ceasing operations and excavating the pipeline, rerouting it, and abandoning it in place, but the ACOE did not make a recommendation when it released the report in September, saying it would issue a recommended plan of action after the release of the final EIS, which is now expected in 2025.
At the rally, demonstrators called on the Biden administration to recommend "Alternative #2."
"We demand that President Biden and the ACOE listen to our voices and choose the 'No Action Alternative #2' in the Environmental Impact Statement deliberation, which would result in the shutdown and capping of the pipeline at the crossing of Lake Oahe," said Stephanie Yellow Hammer, tribal leader of Standing Rock.
One Standing Rock member led campaigners in a chant, declaring, "We stand! For our water! For life!"
Morgan Brings Plenty of the Indigenous Environmental Network said they were driven to travel from South Dakota to Washington, D.C. to once again protest a pipeline that carries risks for an oil spill in the crucial Lake Oahe, violates tribal treaty rights and sovereignty, and could unleash more than 120 million metric tons of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions per year if it remains in operation, according to the EIS released in September.
"Being a long-time pipeline fighter since a young age, you travel and go where you are needed without hesitations," said Brings Plenty. "Going to D.C. over and over with so many youth and allies and family to continue on the fight to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline completely to ensure not only our future but the next generations to come to have a better future in mind. I will not rest until this pipeline and many other fossil fuel projects are put to an end."
Tefere Gebra, chief program officer for Greenpeace USA, participated in the action ahead of the group's scheduled trial in North Dakota stemming from a $300 million lawsuit filed against it by Energy Transfer, the owner of DAPL.
The company has accused Greenpeace of secretly organizing the 2016 mass protests against DAPL, which were actually led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Indigenous water protectors, and is claiming the organization defamed Energy Transfer.
"The injustices of the Dakota Access Pipeline are many, including an assault on Indigenous rights and the right to defend our lands, waters, and communities," said Gebra. "Another attack on Indigenous sovereignty—and on all of our rights to peaceful protest—comes in the form of a $300 million lawsuit."
"No matter what happens, today we stand in solidarity with the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes and call on the Biden administration to shut down DAPL," Gebra added, "while defending ourselves against outrageous attempts to silence and divide our movements."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Furious' at Army Corps, Tribe Calls for Public Support to Shut Down Dakota Access Pipeline
"The Corps' covering for the pipeline company's outrageous safety record and the reviewer's serious conflict of interest have now resulted in a failed effort," said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairwoman Janet Alkire. "They need to start over with adult supervision."
Sep 09, 2023
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairwoman Janet Alkire is leading a fresh demand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers throw out an ongoing environmental review process of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and start again from scratch alongside a superseding call for the pipeline to be shuttered completely.
Following Friday's release of a revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ordered by a federal court, the tribe said the document reveals the entire process has been a failure and that the pipeline—currently operating across their land without consent in what they consider an "illegal" manner by the Energy Transfer company—should be shut down once and for all.
"We're furious that the Army Corps has addressed none of our major concerns during the review process," Chairwoman Alkire said in a statement.
"The pipeline is an imminent threat to the Missouri River, sensitive habitat, and sacred burial sites along the riverbank," she continued. "The oil company's emergency response plans are inadequate, its safety track record is horrendous, and there's been a stunning lack of transparency with Standing Rock throughout the environmental review process, including inaccurate characterizations of tribal consultation."
The Army Corps did not make any recommendations or indicate preferences among the alternatives presented in the new EIS report, which included keeping it in operation, possible rerouting, removing the pipeline by excavation, or abandoning it in place. The Corps said its final recommendations will accompany a final report once the review process is complete, but the Standing Rock Sioux said the process has been seriously flawed.
The tribe said the draft EIS fails to "account for the existence of criminal charges and a host of fines and serious citations" from regulators faced by Energy Transfer. Alkire accused the Corps of "doing all it can to ignore the company’s poor safety record and the high risk" of the pipeline. According to the statement by the tribe:
the entirety of the environmental review process hasn't been taken seriously and is compromised because the Corps selected a company with a clear conflict of interest to prepare the just-released draft EIS. Environmental Resources Management — which also produced a sparkling environmental review for the Keystone XL pipeline, later shelved due to environmental concerns — is a member of the American Petroleum Institute. That organization previously filed a legal brief in support of DAPL in Standing Rock’s suit against the Army Corps.
Moreover, Environmental Resources Management has contracted with at least five separate companies with an ownership interest in DAPL.
The release of the EIS triggers a 45-day public comment period and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is now requesting public support in opposition of the project.
"The Corps' covering for the pipeline company's outrageous safety record and the reviewer's serious conflict of interest have now resulted in a failed effort," said Alkire of the current process. "They need to start over with adult supervision."
Amy Mall, senior advocate at NRDC, said her group stands "in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in opposing this dirty and dangerous pipeline that harms the climate and threatens the primary water source for the Tribe."
"The Army Corps must consider all of the risks of this pipeline, make all significant environmental information available without redactions, and honor the Tribe’s treaty rights," Mall added. "We call on the Corps to shut it down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy