SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
Kirsten Donald, a marine biologist, educator, and advocate with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, explains why the animals she works with need more protections, not fewer.
In July MAGA Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that aims to gut the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act at a time when marine mammals are at greater risk than they've been in decades. It would get rid of protections against "incidental takes" from ship strikes, fishing gear entanglement, or deafening sounds from oil exploration, leaving it illegal only to directly shoot or harpoon a mammal.
Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee, calls these proposed changes "a death sentence" for marine mammals. I decided to have a conversation with someone who deals with marine mammals every day to help clarify the situation. Kirsten Donald is a marine biologist, educator, and advocate with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center (PMMC) in Laguna Beach, California.
It's one of California's leading marine mammal rescue centers where they care for, rehabilitate, and release hundreds of sick and injured animals each year. Before coming to California, Kirsten worked for 18 years at the Dolphin Research Center (DRC) in the Florida Keys. In her 30-year-career she's worked with whales, dolphins, manatees, harbor seals, elephant seals, and sea lions. So thanks, Kirsten.
Kristen Donald (KD): A pleasure. Ever since I was a little girl, I got the thrill of being able to go to the ocean because my family had lived in Maryland for a time and I was just utterly fascinated and I just remember seeing dolphins swimming by and being absolutely enamored by them (and wanting to study marine mammal science).
And then, initially when I went to college, I didn't know what I wanted to do. I was kind of lost and went into communications. And when I was about 26, I had a midlife crisis early and went back to career counseling and realized that I needed to be back in science and reminded myself that I loved animals. I happened to hear about this place called the Dolphin Research Center that offered a program called the Dolphin Lab, which allowed people to come down for a week and interact with their dolphin colony there. So, I traveled all the way down to Florida and I just fell in love with the dolphins and the mission to educate the public to be more compassionate to the issues that we face with these guys in the wild. And after a bit they asked me to apply for a job and that was in 1997 and I've been doing it ever since.
David Helvarg (DH): And the Dolphin Research Center, just so people understand, it's not SeaWorld, it's not all about entertainment?
KD: Oh, no. The, dolphin Research Center has some of the highest standards in the world for the care of the animals.They are an educational, nonprofit, and research facility that has a colony of dolphins that were born there mostly and some retired from other facilities. They also had some that stranded as babies and needed homes because they could not be put back in the wild. And so now the dolphins participate in everything from interactions with humans so people can realize that these animals should be conserved to a significant amount of research on the capabilities of these animals, both acoustically and cognitively so that we can understand the other species in the ocean and the parts they play in the ecosystem. It's a really wonderful place. It's all about the dolphins first.
The stranding coordinator came up to me and said, "You're the only person I have left. Here's a net, here's a kennel (like a dog carrier). Take the car and go to this beach." And I'm like, "I've never done this before."
I remember whenever we would do a session, you come down and if you had something in mind and the dolphins are like, "No," you had to change gears. That was your job, you gotta figure out what they want to do because it's not about making them do anything. But the thing was we made everything a game and exciting and fun. And so, the dolphins were always excited to come over and play. And really the drive behind it is the fact that we are not the owners of this planet. We share it.
I also got involved a bit in the research, whether it was taking behavioral research observations or later on developing a field research program on bottlenosed dolphins in the middle Keys, which had never been done before. And they're still doing that and have expanded that program today, which is really phenomenal. I became the director of education. And I became the director of the College of Marine Mammal Professions, which basically took all of the different Dolphin Lab weeklong classes… to create our own college and be able to grant an associate's degree in marine mammal behavior and care training, which was the first one in the world.
DH: So, you were 18 years there in Florida. What got you connected with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center?
KD: At the time I'd been at DRC for 18 years and believe me, it was the hardest change I ever had to make because all of those dolphins were very much a part of my family. But my daughter was growing up and I wanted her to have more opportunities. The Keys are kind of rural in a way and all of a sudden, this job popped up at Pacific Marine Mammal Center to run the Education Department.
And so, I decided to check it out and it reminded me very much of DRC when I first started. When I started at DRC, there were only 30 employees. And by the time I left there was over a 100 and even more volunteers. When I came to PMMC, we only had about 15 people at the time and just a handful of education programs. And I could see that there were so many opportunities to widen the educational opportunities and really reach a more diverse audience. Also, it gave me the chance to learn more about pinnipeds…We're dealing with the problems that are happening right now in the ocean and so, PMMC rescues typically in any given year, anywhere from like 100 to 200 pinnipeds and a few cetaceans as well.
DH: That would be seals, sea lions, and dolphins.
KD: Exactly. Seals, sea lions, and dolphins. And there have been years also where it was crazy. Like my first year happened to be the worst year on record for strandings. That was back in 2015. And from 2013 to 2016, we had an unusual mortality event because of that warm water blob (a massive marine heatwave known as "the blob") overlapping with the El Niño (cyclical Pacific warming). The waters were ridiculously warm.
And PMMC rescued over 500 animals, much more than we'd typically rescue. And it was due to the fact that since the warm water is there, the fish like colder water. So, they would either go deeper or further out to sea or further up north. And the pups that are on the Channel Islands (breeding colonies off Central California) couldn't swim that far in order to get nutrition. In addition, the mothers that are tied to the islands can't swim very far away because they've got to nurse their pups. And so, it became a situation where mothers were abandoning pups. Pups weren't getting enough to eat, and so there was just a constant influx of these animals.
And it was crazy because my second week at PMMC all the trucks are out, all the rescuers are out. And then the stranding coordinator came up to me and said, "You're the only person I have left. Here's a net, here's a kennel (like a dog carrier). Take the car and go to this beach." And I'm like, "I've never done this before."
"It's fine. You just pick them up and put them in the kennel, you know?" And I'm like, "Okay, I'll give it a try." And so, I went and the sea lion happened to be a very small pup that was on a pier, San Clemente Pier, curled up. Didn't even move when I picked him up, he was so emaciated. And so, I popped him in the kennel and then this lady ran up to me and she's like, "There's another one over there."
And he is really skinny. And you know, I'm from a different background in terms of when you work with animals that are in human-managed care, you introduce them slowly, you know, you let them get to know each other. And I only had one kennel and I'm like, how could I put another animal in this kennel? I can't do that. What should I do? So, I call her and she goes, "Oh no, just get them both. They don't care. Just shove them in. They'll be fine."
DH: This is triage. This is emergency room type activity?
KD: Yeah. And this is also me not being as familiar at the time with sea lion behavior because they do lie over each other. They create piles, especially as pups. And so, this one was going in and out of the water and I had to actually get the net and get between it and the water so I could net it and then put it in the kennel (with the first pup) and bring it back. So, that was my very first rescue, and I named the animals Yin and Yang because they were very different (personalities). And it was quite the experience.
DH: And as you say, it was a traumatic time because the blob was the worst of these major marine heatwaves that we've experienced linked to climate change. So, there was loss of prey, there was starvation at the time. And these marine heatwaves have also supercharged Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) that can also poison marine mammals.
KD: Exactly. And that's what's happened. This year we have had the worst harmful algal bloom on record. These animals are struggling right now with regard to climate change as well as plastics and chemicals in the ocean. I can give you two really good examples. Number one the gray whale, which was actually a huge success under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). It was one of the major successes of the MMPA. They were the first large whale species to be delisted (taken off the Endangered Species Act list) after whaling (was banned). They were almost decimated, and they came back 27,000 strong. And between 2019 and 2023, their population has plummeted down to 13,000 animals. So, half the population is gone and scientists looked into it and discovered that this was very much connected to climate change.
Basically, what was happening is that since the (polar) ice cover was receding earlier and the algae that grows underneath it, instead of falling to the bottom and feeding the amphipods (tiny shrimp-like crustaceans that the whales feed on) the ice would recede. The fish go in and eat up all the algae and the amphipods die. And these guys (the migrating gray whales) go up there to eat the pods but there's not enough up there. And so, they spend longer and longer trying to eat, expending more and more energy. But they're still coming back emaciated. And they are dying in droves all up and down the coast from Canada to Mexico.
I think that's what everything going on in society is telling us, that people really need to step up and get involved.
So, it was an international event. And actually, they closed the Unusual Mortality Event (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration designation) after 2023. And just this year we are already having a ton of these animals stranded up north around the Monterey Bay area, starting again. It's considered an unusual mortality event because it's something that we normally don't see and is not a natural cycle. So, they thought it was over in 2023, but just this year, in 2025, it's begun again. So, these guys (gray whales) are not out of trouble. In fact, if they can lose half their population in just a few years, this is the worst time to take away their protections.
The other example is California sea lions that breed around the Channel Islands. And one of the studies that our veterinarian did was in looking at the high levels of DDT in these sea lions because there's DDT that was dumped back in the 60s near those islands (by the Montrose Chemical Corp. and others via LA storm drains).
And DDT is a very toxic persistent organic pollutant, which is basically a fertilizer but it stays in the environment for thousands of years. These animals are accumulating it through nursing as well as the food that they eat. And what we've discovered is that they will develop cancer because the DDT interacts with a herpes virus, which pretty much they all have, and is a catalyst for cancer. And so about 25% of the adult patients that come through PMMC are diagnosed with terminal cancer unfortunately, and that's the highest rate of cancer in any mammal on the planet. So again, we're dealing with, human impacts on these species and so they need the protections. In fact, they need more protections than the MMPA provides currently.
DH: We had a few decades where the Marine Mammal Protection Act was working well. The Florida manatees went from 1,000 to 10,000, right?
KD: The Marine Mammal Protection Act is great. It has helped a lot of species, but there are still species that need even more protection like the North Atlantic right whale. There's only 370 of them left. And the changes that are proposed (in the MMPA) actually will delay any action to help them by reducing entanglements (in fishing gear) or ship strikes which are the two major things that are hurting their population. And they don't have 10 years to wait because they've lost half their population since 2017. So, you can see the trajectory that they're already on.
DH: They're trying to roll back all environmental protections. With something like NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, people may not know what it's about, but with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it's right there in the name. In the 1990s popular movements got us to dolphin-free tuna where they used to put the nets around schools of dolphin knowing tuna where underneath them and they'd kill hundreds of thousands of dolphins along with the tuna. Under this so-called MAGA "reform" of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, there's nothing to stop them from doing that again.
KD: Exactly, and we do need the power of the public right now. I think that's what everything going on in society is telling us, that people really need to step up and get involved.
DH: People need to not only volunteer with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center and other marine animal rescue centers for example but also to call their congresspeople and senators and say, "This is not acceptable."
KD: Exactly, that's something that we talk about all the time, and this is why I am such a big proponent of education, helping people understand that they have power, they have a voice. To stand up and call your congressmen if everybody is doing that and letting them know that they care about these issues. If you're a congressperson and not listening to your constituents, you're probably not going to get reelected. And you're there to represent the people's interest. And so, we need people to express that interest.
DH: And again, there's this disingenuous argument being put forward by Republican sponsors of rolling back the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is these laws have worked so well that these animals are no longer at risk. And this is simply bunk. Like who are some of your patients right now?
KD: Well, actually our patients are all gone right now. We're very excited. We had a really tough year with the unusual mortality event we went through, with the harmful algal bloom because I gotta tell you, it was very rough. Literally most of the animals that came in, or at least half of them, had to be euthanized because they had too many toxins in their system that damaged their brain. Because that's what happens with domoic acid poisoning. It's produced by the algae, and the fish eat it. And then the sea lions eat the fish and get concentrated doses and that toxin goes to the brain, damages it, and it doesn't allow them to be able to navigate spatially. They do things they're not normally doing…
DH: Wandering up on the highways. There was a lot of publicity recently about a sea lion that was biting surfers.
KD: Exactly. People were up in arms about sea lions biting and they don't normally do that. They normally leave you alone. But the animals were so out of their minds because their brains were damaged, that they were being aggressive. And so, there were quite a number, a large number of animals that we had to euthanize. And what was even sadder is that the majority of California sea lions that came in should be doing what they do every year—breeding.
The biggest help that we can provide is standing up for the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act because they're the two strongest, most important (animal protection) acts that have been passed in the United States.
And so many were pregnant. And they were not yet close to term. They were about three-quarters of the way through their pregnancies. But they were having to euthanize these females and in some cases, they'd have to induce abortions to try to save the females because there are so many toxins in the amniotic fluid that the female can reabsorb those unless we induce abortion.
And so, what's even sadder is when they would induce these abortions, some of the pups would try to take a breath, even though that they were not viable yet, they were not fully developed. And so, literally as the babies were coming out, they were brought to the veterinarian who then had to turn around and euthanize them.
It was a really traumatic year for our animal care. And it's really worrisome that again, this is the fourth year in a row that we've had a harmful algal bloom, and this was the worst on record. What are we in store for in the years to come? That's a real concern of ours. So, yes, it was a tough year.
DH: And again, at the federal level, we're both denying the reality of climate change and now trying to deny the reality that marine mammals are in serious trouble.
KD: Right. And when you look at things happening in the ocean, there's no denying climate change anymore. There's absolutely none. It's happening. It's affecting the animals. They're showing it to us. It's sad when we have these animals. We get them back up to speed, they're ready to go out, they're healthy. And then we realize we're releasing them into a damaged home, a broken home that we need to help fix because we broke it. And so, it's really personal to us.
DH: Okay. I really appreciate the work you're doing, and so let's end on a happy note. What was your last release?
KD: The last release I was on, it was great because I got to go with my entire staff and with some animal care people out on a boat release, because sometimes it's better to release the animals off boats (rather than from beaches), especially if they're like adult animals.
We get them further away from the beach so they don't present a hazard to people. That's where they're normally meant to be anyway, further out in the ocean. And so, we had three different animals, and you would basically move the crate up to the edge of the boat and open the kennel and they look around, they dunk their head in the water and look around and then slowly climb in.
And then you just do one after the other. And it's sometimes funny because I've seen elephant seals do the same thing where one will like stick his head in the water, then look at his buddy and wait for the buddy to go in. And then look in the water again and make sure, I'm thinking he's making sure there's no sharks, you know, let his buddy go in first.
So, it's neat and sometimes they'll look back at us too you know, and we like to think it's a "Thank you for helping me." And then they just swim away and do what they're meant to be doing. So, it's really gratifying to see them go home, but it gives us even more motivation to try to help get word out about these issues so that people can take action in their own lives to help, because there are all these simple things that we can do… The biggest help that we can provide is standing up for the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act because they're the two strongest, most important (animal protection) acts that have been passed in the United States and that also are unique.
This story is based on my interview with Kirstin Donald for Blue Frontier's Rising Tide Ocean Podcast that aired on August 25, 2025.
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” But wildness cannot survive without protection, and protection is what this order destroys.
On April 9, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14270, blandly titled “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy.” Behind that bureaucratic name is a sweeping directive: Dismantle a century of environmental protections.
Every regulation related to the environment, natural resources, or energy, whether it safeguards air, water, species, or public lands, must be rewritten to serve polluters or vanish by default.
Some will claim this is just about efficiency. But no standard review process sets a mass expiration date for protections, regardless of science, impact, or legal mandate. This is not streamlining. It is a countdown to erasure.
While courts deliberate, rules will expire. Enforcement will be suspended. Polluters will act as if the rules are already gone.
The deadline is September 30, 2026. Any rule not revised and reauthorized by then will expire automatically.
What will remain will not be protection. It will not be science. It will not be law. It will be a hollow shell, stripped of enforcement and public purpose.
This is not reform. It is demolition. It is sabotage by executive order.
To everyone who said, “They’d never go that far,” they just did. And the collapse has already begun.
With Executive Order 14270, Donald Trump issued not a policy revision but a regulatory kill order.
The EO mandates that all regulations under energy-related authority—especially those administered by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Departments of Interior and Energy—must be reviewed and either revised to align with the administration’s priorities or be automatically terminated by September 30, 2026. While for some agencies the EO does not name specific laws, many foundational protections fall within these agencies’ regulatory domains.
Some may argue this is simply a regulatory reset or a call for modernization. But this is not a review guided by science, need, or public interest. It is a mandate that requires rules to serve industry or disappear by default. There is no neutral path. There is no room for delay. If an agency fails to revise and reauthorize a rule in time, it expires. No matter how vital it is.
Legal experts and environmental attorneys have described similar regulatory strategies by the previous Trump administration as calculated attempts to dismantle environmental protections from within.
Even the rules that survive review will be rewritten, stripped of science and purpose, then repackaged as hollow compliance.
This is not a bureaucratic obstacle. It is a regulatory kill switch.
What that means in practice:
• Endangered Species Act—gone.
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act—gone.
• Marine Mammal Protection Act—one.
• Anadromous Fish Conservation Act—under threat.
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act—gone.
These aren’t just under review. They are all under attack.
The laws everyone recognizes, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, are just the beginning.
Beneath them lie hundreds of foundational rules that safeguard public health, climate resilience, environmental justice, and disaster readiness. Under Executive Order 14270, they are all at risk.
Supporters may claim the order only targets outdated or burdensome regulations. But the text applies broadly and indiscriminately. It sets no exceptions for essential rules, no protections for high-impact safeguards, and no criteria for public benefit. Unless these rules are rewritten to meet the new standards and reauthorized by September 30, 2026, they will expire. Along with them goes the regulatory backbone of modern environmental protection.
This is not theoretical. These laws will fall unless actively rescued.
Key protections on the chopping block:
Air, Water, and Public Health
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act
• Superfund cleanup authority
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
Land and Resource Protection
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
• Wilderness Act
• Antiquities Act
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Energy and Climate
• Energy Policy Act of 2005
• Greenhouse gas endangerment finding
• Energy Star Program
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Each of these took years, sometimes decades, of organizing, science, and compromise to create. They were not handed down by elites. They were won by people who refused to accept poisoned air, burning rivers, and dead coastlines.
Now they are being erased in a single executive order. Not one by one. All at once. This is not a rollback. It is erasure.
Executive Order 14270 does not just target major environmental laws. It dismantles the infrastructure that makes those laws real.
Supporters may argue that the laws remain untouched. But behind every statute, like the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, are thousands of rules, monitoring systems, enforcement protocols, and technical standards. Without them, laws are just words on paper.
Now, all of that must be rewritten to serve polluters. If not, it disappears permanently.
Thousands of environmental regulations administered by agencies such as the EPA and the Department of the Interior could be subject to review and potential termination under Executive Order 14270.
Here is what that collapse looks like:
Public Health Protections
• Air monitoring rules vanish. No alerts for lead, benzene, or ozone.
• Radiation limits are lifted. Safety near nuclear sites erodes.
• Vehicle emissions testing ends. Smog returns to U.S. cities.
Water, Waste, and Pollution
• Stormwater runoff restrictions disappear. Waste floods rivers.
• Hazardous waste transport rules vanish. Disposal turns chaotic.
• Drilling oversight ends. Protected lands are opened to industry.
Climate and Disaster Response
• Energy efficiency rules are revoked. Electric bills rise.
• Fire mitigation programs are defunded. Wildfires grow deadlier.
• Fisheries protections vanish. Coastal economies are destabilized.
This is not just about forests or fish. It is about tap water, asthma medication, grocery prices, and cancer risks.
Betsy Southerland, former EPA director of science and technology for water, has warned that deregulatory approaches of this kind could lead to systemic breakdowns in public health protections.
This order does not trim fat. It guts the public architecture that keeps America safe, functional, and future-ready.
The damage from Executive Order 14270 will not stop with wildlife or wilderness. It will hammer the economy; threaten public health; and unravel industries that depend on clean air, safe water, and protected landscapes.
Some defenders will argue that environmental regulations stifle business, raise costs, or limit innovation. But environmental law in America was not born from ideology. It was forged in crisis, created to prevent economic collapse, mass illness, and ecological ruin. Many of these statutes were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because Americans knew the cost of doing nothing was greater.
The Clean Air Act passed under former President Richard Nixon. The 1972 Clean Water Act was called “the most comprehensive and expensive environmental legislation in the nation’s history.” These laws did not just protect nature. They helped build the modern economy.
Many of the protections now targeted form the backbone of multibillion-dollar industries:
Wildlife and National Identity
• The Endangered Species Act saved the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and California condor.
• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects ecosystems and supports rural economies across the country.
• The Marine Mammal Protection Act helped build a coastal tourism sector that generates billions.
• Fish conservation laws sustain sport fishing, a major driver in many regional economies.
Outdoor Economies
• Outdoor recreation supports $887 billion in consumer spending and 7.6 million jobs.
• Hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and camping all depend on healthy ecosystems.
• Without habitat protections, what is Yellowstone without wolves, or the coast without whales?
The law may speak of species and land. But the stakes are money, jobs, health, and identity.
This executive order guts the systems that protect them all.
The collapse will not hit everyone equally. It never does.
When environmental protections vanish, the first to suffer are the poor, the marginalized, and the politically powerless.
Some may argue that environmental burdens are shared evenly across society. But the data and history say otherwise. Environmental harm follows lines of poverty, race, and neglect. It hits those with the fewest resources, the least political power, and the highest exposure to toxins.
Without the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, vulnerable communities will lose safeguards against dumping, runoff, and lead contamination. New water crises will erupt in towns already on the edge.
Without the Clean Air Act, toxic smog will return to cities, especially in low-income and minority neighborhoods shaped by redlining and industrial zoning.
Without the National Environmental Policy Act, communities will have no voice in what gets built near their homes: pipelines, refineries, highways, landfills.
Without Superfund enforcement, the most toxic sites in America will be left to rot. Poison will seep into soil, water, and lives.
This is not theory. It is already happening:
• In Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, petrochemical plants poison Black neighborhoods. Cancer rates there are 50 times the national average.
• In West Virginia, abandoned coal towns face toxic water and respiratory illness.
• In Alaska and the Southwest, Indigenous communities still live beside Cold War-era uranium waste.
• Along the Pacific coast, salmon vanish and fishing economies unravel.
These are not isolated stories. They are previews.
The burden will fall hardest on those without lawyers, lobbyists, or local health departments—families already excluded from public hearings, ignored by regulators, and left behind by politics.
Executive Order 14270 turns temporary harm into permanent abandonment.
This is not just inequality. It is environmental apartheid..
This is not hypothetical. It is structural failure, built into the design.
Executive Order 14270 sets an impossible mandate: Every environmental regulation must be reviewed, revised, and reauthorized by September 30, 2026. If not, it will expire automatically.
Some will claim that with enough willpower and coordination, agencies can meet the deadline. But that is a myth. There are not enough staff. There is not enough time. And there is no intention to make it work. The order was built to break the system, not to improve it.
Environmental watchdogs and legal analysts suggest that only a small percentage of rules could realistically be reviewed and reissued before the deadline.
This is not deregulation. It is planned demolition.
Here is what that guarantees:
• Legal protections for ecosystems will collapse.
• Clean air and water rules will disappear.
• Ecotourism and outdoor recreation will suffer.
• Climate policy will be paralyzed.
• Inequality will worsen as states scramble to fill the void.
• Courts will be overwhelmed by lawsuits and confusion.
• Irreversible environmental damage will be locked in for generations.
Even if a future administration tries to reverse the damage, it could take years or even decades to rebuild what was destroyed.
Some things will not survive that long: species, coastlines, forests, ecosystems.
This is not a policy failure. It is policy used as a weapon.
The extinction of environmental protections is not a side effect. It is the goal.
Technically, yes. Executive Order 14270 can be enforced. But legally and practically, it is a minefield for all concerned.
Agencies can initiate rule reviews and assign expiration dates, especially when leadership supports the administration’s anti-regulatory agenda. But that does not make it lawful.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies must follow strict procedures before repealing or replacing rules. They must issue public notices, allow comment periods, hold hearings, and provide justifications. They cannot simply say, “The president told us to.”
Some defenders may argue the president has broad authority to manage agencies. But the law is clear: Regulatory repeal must follow legal process. Many of the protections targeted by this order were enacted by Congress. Agencies do not have the authority to let them quietly expire or gut them without breaking the law.
That is why lawsuits are already being filed. Legal challenges will come from environmental groups, state attorneys general, and public interest organizations.
But here is the catch: the damage will not wait.
While courts deliberate, rules will expire. Enforcement will be suspended. Polluters will act as if the rules are already gone.
Even if a judge rules against the administration, the harm will be done:
• Toxic waste released.
• Forests cleared.
• Communities exposed.
And if the White House refuses to comply? There is no enforcement arm of the Administrative Procedure Act. No agency exists to compel federal departments to enforce their own rules.
The only option is to sue, repeatedly, rule by rule, across jurisdictions.
As one Earthjustice attorney put it, “The law doesn’t enforce itself. And this administration knows it.”
Litigation takes money, time, expertise, and legal standing. These are resources many frontline communities do not have.
Environmental lawyers and watchdogs saw this coming. They are already planning for fights across dozens of fronts: air quality, pipelines, species protection, data suppression, and executive action.
But how many lawsuits will it take? 10? 50? 100?
Each one will be slow. Expensive. Uncertain.
This is not incompetence. It is sabotage, carried out with full intent.
This executive order is not just a domestic disaster.It is a climate change nuclear bomb.
Executive Order 14270 erases the foundation of nearly every federal climate policy:
• It nullifies the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, the legal trigger for regulating carbon emissions.
• It dismantles efficiency standards for appliances, buildings, and vehicles.
• It undermines the Energy Star Program and other clean energy incentives.
• It guts methane rules, fuel economy standards, and oil spill safeguards.
Some will argue that climate progress can continue without federal policy, through state action or private innovation. But without national coordination, incentives, and legal authority, that progress will slow, fragmented, and ultimately fall short. Federal policy drives investment, enforces accountability, and sets the global tone.
With these tools gone, the United States cannot meet its climate goals. Not nationally. Not globally.
We will miss our Paris agreement targets. We will exceed the 1.5°C warming threshold. And we will pull other nations backward with us.
The damage is not just about emissions. It is about lost leadership. Lost credibility. And a green light to polluters everywhere.
This is not a pause. It is a reversal.
Climate collapse is no longer a distant danger. It is a scheduled event, signed into law by the president.
This executive order does not repeal environmental laws. It kills the systems that make those laws work.
The Clean Air Act will still exist. But if EPA regulations expire, there will be no enforcement.
The Endangered Species Act will remain on paper. But without specific protections and triggers, no species will be protected.
This is the method: Dismantle implementation. Remove enforcement. Let the law collapse from the inside out.
It is a bureaucratic kill switch, designed to erase a century of environmental progress without ever repealing a statute.
Legal on paper. Lethal in practice.
Once the rules disappear, the laws become theater:
• No enforcement.
• No funding.
• No consequences.
They will still be on the books, but they will no longer matter.
Empty laws. Empty air. Empty rivers. Empty promises.
There is no silver-bullet lawsuit. No single agency. No shortcut.
This executive order will not be stopped by one clever court challenge. It will take dozens, perhaps hundreds, of battles—rule by rule, agency by agency, ecosystem by ecosystem.
Some will ask, why not file one big lawsuit to stop it all? Because Executive Order 14270 does not repeal a single law. It sets a countdown clock for thousands of regulations to vanish unless reauthorized. That makes it nearly lawsuit-proof by design. Each rule must be challenged individually, and only after harm has occurred. Courts cannot force agencies to act unless Congress explicitly mandates it. And even then, litigation takes time. By the time a ruling arrives, the damage may already be done. The law does not enforce itself. And this executive order exploits that fact.
There is no cavalry. Only us.
So we fight, everywhere:
• File lawsuits, fast and often: Legal action is the first and last line of defense. Every expired rule must be challenged. Every unlawful revision must be contested. Rapid-response legal teams must be ready to sue the EPA, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy across multiple jurisdictions. Delay means destruction.
• Support legal and watchdog organizations: Groups like Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity are already fighting. But they are underfunded and overwhelmed. They need staff, experts, and resources. Every donation matters. Every volunteer strengthens the line.
• Pressure elected officials at every level: Demand public hearings. Demand oversight. Call your governor. Write your city council. Make it politically toxic to support this executive order.
• Act locally: States and cities can pass their own clean air and water laws. They can fund conservation, restrict drilling, and sue federal agencies. Join local groups. Attend zoning meetings. Run for water boards and planning commissions. Build resistance into local government.
• Refuse to normalize this: Speak out. Disrupt. Document. This is not politics as usual. Say so. Organize protests. Submit op-eds. Flood comment periods. Call out silence. Expose polluters. Make the truth visible.
• Demand media coverage: Executive Order 14270 should be a daily headline. If it is not, make it one. Share stories. Elevate frontline voices. Hold media outlets accountable. If national media fails, local and independent voices must rise.
This is a regulatory blitz.And resistance must be relentless.
The strategy is simple: flood the system, fracture it, and exhaust the opposition.
While we scramble to save species, lands, and laws, they bulldoze everything else.
This is not a warning. It is a dispatch from the front lines.
They are not debating whether to dismantle environmental protections. They are dismantling them, right now.
If you ever said, “They would never go that far,” They just did.
This is not just bad policy. It is a deliberate attempt to cripple the government’s ability to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, the climate we depend on, and the living world we love.
It is not a mistake. It is the plan.
The question is no longer what they will do. The question is what we will do about it.