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
sierra club
Trump Administration Making Aggressive Push to Use Public Lands for AI Data Centers
One critic said the Trump administration was "bending knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do."
Sep 11, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration is making an aggressive push to find public lands to use for building artificial intelligence data centers, according to a Friday report in The Washington Sun.
The US Department of the Interior, under the leadership of Secretary Doug Burgum, has pushed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to "identify public land ripe for data center development," and provide lists to department leadership, reported the Sun.
Leaders at the Interior Department gave state BLM leaders just three days to compile their lists, emphasizing this was a "top priority," the Sun's sources said.
Additionally, reported the Sun, Burgum has been meeting regularly with Big Tech executives to discuss ways to accelerate data center development.
The department's aggressive push stems from a Trump executive order signed in July 2025 that tasked the government with identifying federal lands that could be used to build data centers.
Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation and former BLM state director, told the Sun that she's concerned that the Trump administration is "bending knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do" without asking the right questions about data centers' impact on public lands.
Rugwell added that the BLM during Trump's second term has shed nearly half of its staff, leaving few experts available to evaluate the environmental impact of data centers.
“Where are they going to get people to do the analysis especially when you have a technology that’s relatively new and not well defined?” Rugwell asked. “It’s a headache BLM doesn’t need."
Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club’s Nevada chapter, told the Sun that the nationwide backlash to data center construction has gotten so intense that the tech industry might see using public lands as their best option for building out capacity.
“A lot of elected officials in Nevada on both sides of the aisle are really hesitant to approve data centers in their local jurisdiction,” said Tanager. "I would imagine in some cases, despite the environmental review being heightened in a lot of instances being sited on federal public land, there’s more political will to move those projects forward."
Jayson O'Neill, spokesperson for Save Our Parks, accused Burgum of trying to "exploit our parks and public lands" for the benefit of wealthy tech donors.
"Data Center Doug Burgum is actively shopping America's public lands to data center developers, the AI industry, and big energy companies lining up to power them," O'Neill said. "And he’s keeping communities in the dark, hiding the details from Congress and the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Urged to Withdraw Rule to Let Data Centers Obtain Pollution Permits in Secret
"The result will be some of the dirtiest power sources rushed into neighborhoods without giving communities any opportunity to weigh in," said one critic.
Aug 25, 2026
Critics are warning that President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is pushing through a rule that would let artificial intelligence data center builders off the hook for making public disclosures ahead of construction.
The rule, which first came to light during an EPA meeting last month, would delegate power to states over public participation in the permitting process for specific sources of air pollution, such as diesel generators that are frequently used by data centers.
According to a July report in Mother Jones, the proposed rule "could have major consequences for how ordinary people are given notice about new or expanded polluting facilities coming into their neighborhoods."
Late last week, a coalition of more than 200 environmental groups filed objections to the rule change, which they warned would make public notice for certain polluting projects entirely optional, depending on the whims of state and local governments.
Dori Jaffe, managing attorney at Sierra Club, said on Monday that the rule change would "help data center developers evade more health standards and do so secretly."
"We demand that the EPA rescind this attempt to further cut the public out of decisions made in their own backyards," said Jaffe. "We deserve to have a say about developments in our community that would impact our air quality and the health of our families."
Sheena Patel, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted that the administration was attempting to limit public input into polluting projects at a time when opposition to AI data center construction has hit a record high among US voters.
If the rule change goes through, Patel added, "the result will be some of the dirtiest power sources rushed into neighborhoods without giving communities any opportunity to weigh in."
Brandon Jones-Cobb, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was "beyond cruel" that the EPA seems determined to "silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air" generated by polluting industries.
"The agency has already turned its back on science, cut enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminated life-saving air pollution measures," said Jones-Cobb. "Now it wants to shut the public out of decisions to build or expand facilities that expose communities to dangerous air pollution, including data centers. This EPA is so out of touch with Americans and only focuses on making polluters happy."
In an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday, Joe Goffman, former assistant administrator for the EPA’s office of air and radiation, said the rule change would dismantle what he described as an "ironclad promise" made in the 1963 Clean Air Act to give ordinary citizens voices in where, how, and whether potential centers of air pollution are built.
"The administration is basically saying: 'You all may have thought this was an ironclad promise, but it no longer is,'" Goffman emphasized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Just Pause Trump Border Construction in Big Bend National Park, Say Conservationists, End It
"Even with Customs and Border Protection pumping the brakes, the contractors could resume bulldozing deeper into the national park, causing irreversible damage to the wildest place in Texas," warned one campaigner.
Aug 18, 2026
Since US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott on Monday announced a temporary pause on construction in Big Bend National Park for an "on-the-ground evaluation," conservationists have called for CBP to permanently halt the Trump administration's widely opposed plans for southwest Texas.
"We've been watching the permanent destruction of a great American national park unfold in real time," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement.
The center joined Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a local river guide and landowner on Monday in asking a federal judge to stop border barrier and road construction in the region until the court rules on their lawsuit challenging a related waiver of various laws issued by the Trump administration.
"Even with Customs and Border Protection pumping the brakes, the contractors could resume bulldozing deeper into the national park, causing irreversible damage to the wildest place in Texas," Jordahl warned. "We're hopeful the judge will stop this destruction until there's a ruling on the merits of our case."
CPB previously ditched plans for a 30-foot wall in the area, but crews recently started work on a new road, barriers intended to stop cars from crossing over from Mexico, and other infrastructure as part of President Donald Trump's intense anti-immigrant agenda. Conservationists are concerned about negative impacts on not only the national park but also nearby Amistad National Recreation Area and Big Bend Ranch State Park.
The border construction in the region has been met with sweeping opposition, including from both Democratic and Republican elected officials. GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott suggested Monday that his weekend conversation with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin led to the pause. He said the department leader assured him there would be "no construction of any type of barrier at Big Bend National Park," with federal agents instead relying on "other tools" to prevent any border crossings.
The public outcry is working. Keep up the pressure until they fully abandon the plan to wreck Big Bend for no reason other than to make contractors money.Law enforcement, conservationists, Democrats, Republicans, Texans all agree: leave Big Bend alone.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Greg Casar (@repcasar.bsky.social) August 17, 2026 at 6:58 PM
Tiernan Sittenfeld, president and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association, framed the pause as proof that public pressure works, saying: "The people have spoken, and they do not want the Trump administration to bulldoze America's national parks for border infrastructure. This pause on construction comes following hundreds of thousands of Americans bravely raising their voices to save Big Bend National Park."
"Unfortunately, the federal contractors' bulldozers have already inflicted tremendous damage to one of America's most iconic national parks," she noted. "Their heavy equipment has torn through miles of priceless wild landscape, wreaking havoc on sensitive wildlife and irreplaceable habitat."
"We demand that Customs and Border Protection take accountability for the destruction that has occurred at the park and do better by the American people and by our national parks," she added. "When Customs and Border Protection meets with West Texas communities, national park advocates, and expert national park staff, we urge the agency to commit to preventing any further harm to Big Bend and other protected landscapes."
Big Bend National Park is pretty perfect “as is,” so keep raising your voices.
[image or embed]
— Senator Martin Heinrich (@heinrich.senate.gov) August 17, 2026 at 6:08 PM
Dave Cortez, director of the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, pledged Monday that "West Texas will not stand by while these irreplaceable landscapes remain at risk. This pause is a step in the right direction, but the threat has not passed."
"While we call on Texans of all political stripes to continue to press Gov. Abbott to defend Big Bend, we need every American who cherishes our public lands to continue to contact their members of Congress and encourage them to abandon every plan that puts Big Bend in harm's way," Cortez continued.
His colleague who manages the national Sierra Club's lands conservation campaign, Jackie Feinberg, also stressed that "Big Bend should never have been bulldozed for a destructive border project, and the Trump administration must make this pause permanent and repair the damage already done."
"Anything less than a full withdrawal is unacceptable for the millions of Americans across the country who love and cherish our national parks and public lands," she said. "The Sierra Club will keep fighting until this project is permanently rescinded. We call on Congress to act to defend Big Bend and ensure that our shared lands and waters nationwide are protected for generations to come."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Sue Trump EPA for Approving Toxic Semiconductor Chemicals Amid AI Data Center Boom
“The rush to build more and more data centers is causing harm far beyond the data centers themselves."
Aug 14, 2026
A trio of green groups on Friday sued the US Environmental Protection Agency over its approval of two new chemicals for semiconductor manufacturing, arguing that the EPA allowed potentially dangerous substances to be sold despite acknowledging significant gaps in its understanding of their health risks.
CHIPS Communities United and the Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco challenging the approvals. The groups contend that the EPA violated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by permitting the chemicals’ use without adequately assessing their risks to employees in semiconductor plants and the communities in which they are located.
According to Earthjustice, the EPA identified potential hazards including cancer, neurological damage, and even sudden death, but also acknowledged that it lacked sufficient information to determine the full extent of those risks. The names of the chemicals are redacted in the complaint—in which they are identified by their EPA premanufacture notice numbers, P-26-0029 and P-26-0045—because the agency has designated their identities as confidential business information.
“The Trump administration is rushing dangerous chemicals to market without the review or the protection that the law requires,” Earthjustice senior attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “Here, EPA admits that it has not evaluated the full extent of these chemicals’ health risks, yet it is still sending them into communities across the country and leaving the public to discover their effects one doctor’s visit at a time.”
CHIPS Communities United coalition director Judith Barish said: “Neighbors and workers are exposed to toxic chemicals in semiconductor factories. Over decades, workers in chip [factories] have been harmed by workplace exposure and residents of nearby communities have been impacted by hazardous air or water that is contaminated by these chemicals."
"We call on the EPA to stop approving chemicals that can harm public health without understanding the risks," Barish added.
As Earthjustice noted:
Semiconductor manufacturing is a major ongoing source of [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances], a large class of toxic “forever chemicals,” along with other industrial manufacturing sources. PFAS don’t easily break down and can persist in our bodies and the environment for decades or more. Semiconductors are also foundational hardware for artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, affecting many communities in addition to those surrounding the massive polluting chip factories.
The groups' lawsuit comes over a month after the EPA under President Donald Trump—who campaigned on what critics say was a largely empty promise to "make America healthy again"—and agency Administrator Lee Zeldin approved a fifth “forever chemical” pesticide pushed by industry lobbyists.
"EPA’s approval of these unstudied chemicals is just the latest example of the Trump EPA refusing to follow the legal risk assessment processes under TSCA and prioritizing industry profits over public health," Earthjustice said on Friday. "Last year, the agency proposed shifts to how it conducts risk evaluations for chemicals already in use and on the market that would let it ignore the real-world risks posed by toxic chemicals."
Harmful chemicals associated with data center cooling, fire suppression, and production of semiconductors and other electronic components include refrigerants such as Freon and Opteon, Teflon coatings for cable insulation, Krytox for pumps and robotics, and Viton for sealing.
Additionally, as the Natural Resources Defense Council explained, data center cooling systems "can consume vast quantities of water and pollute large quantities of water, depending on the type of cooling system used. For example, evaporative cooling consumes large quantities of water while some immersion cooling techniques rely on harmful chemicals such as PFAS."
While much critical attention on the lack of guardrails on unchecked AI development has focused on the risks of the technology itself and its economic implications—which experts say includes the shorter-term danger of mass unemployment and the long-term threat that superintelligent machines could one day subjugate or even wipe out humanity—the green groups are highlighting environmental and health hazards amid the worsening climate emergency.
"The rush to build more and more data centers is causing harm far beyond the data centers themselves," Jane Williams, chair of the Grassroots Network National Clean Air Team at Sierra Club, said Friday.
“From the plants where toxic chemicals are used to make semiconductors, to the roads these chemicals are transported on, and finally to the incinerators where they are disposed, EPA’s approval of these dangerously unstudied chemicals places the public at risk," Williams added. "These chemicals are suspected to be persistent bioaccumulative toxins, a category of chemicals that contaminate breast milk, cord blood, and the next generation. This action is an assault on the future.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Death Knell for America's Wildlife,' Trump Admin Guts Habitat Protections for Endangered Species
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," said one critic.
Jul 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday paved the way for letting US corporations destroy the habitats of endangered species by rescinding a longtime interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.
As reported by The New York Times, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced that they were narrowing the law's definition of what constitutes harming endangered species.
Whereas the law has for decades been interpreted as protecting endangered animals' habitats from significant "modification or degradation," the administration said that offenders would have to directly injure or kill an endangered animal to be considered in violation of the law.
"The change could open the door for fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers, and others," wrote the Times, "to disturb or even destroy the habitats of vulnerable species."
The Endangered Species Act has been interpreted as protecting animals' habitats for decades, and that interpretation upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1995.
Environmental advocates expressed horror in response to the rule change, which they said would put endangered species at unprecedented risk.
Kristen Boyles, attorney for Earthjustice, vowed that the administration would face legal challenges for its rule change, which she said would jeopardize endangered animals' ability to "raise their young, or search for food."
"Let’s be clear: There is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule—no scientific support, no legal support, no public support," Boyles said. "We will see the Trump Administration in court."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the rule changed "a direct attack on the foundation of the Endangered Species Act" that, if kept in place, would put species "on a path to extinction."
"This rule ignores that reality in an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats, wildlife be damned," Greuel emphasized. "The Endangered Species Act is a bedrock law that must be followed."
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that "habitat destruction is the number one threat to endangered species," while calling the Trump administration's new policy "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," Zuardo said. "Spotted owls, Atlantic salmon, Florida panthers, and thousands of other species need protections for the wild places where they make their homes."
Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, accused the Trump administration of embracing an "erroneous and nonsensical interpretation" of the Endangered Species Act that he vowed to challenge in court.
"We intend to fight back with the full force of the law," said Bowman, "to defeat this attack and innumerable others by the administration on the statutes and regulations that protect America’s cherished wildlife."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's ANWR Oil and Gas Auction Was a Bust—But Alaskan Arctic Still Faces Fossil Fuel Threat
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life," said Earthjustice.
Jun 05, 2026
In an embarrassment for President Donald Trump and his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, Friday's third oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once again drew no bids from Big Oil—but conservationists stressed that fossil fuel expansion still poses a serious threat to the pristine wilderness and its human and animal inhabitants.
The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered 60 tracts on 689,000 acres in the ANWR in northeastern Alaska's Coastal Plain for lease sales. Just two companies—the government-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority and Hex LLC, an Alaska firm—bought five leases that generated a paltry $3.7 million in total receipts.
“Yet again, no major oil and gas companies showed up to bid, because they know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a losing proposition,” said Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, which represents the Gwich'in Indigenous people and opposes drilling.
“We will continue to fight the Trump administration’s leasing program, and work with our friends and allies to protect this sacred and irreplaceable landscape from development of any kind," Moreland added.
The Trump administration had touted fossil fuel lease sales as a way to help pay for tax cuts in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that mostly benefited corporations and wealthy individuals. The law, which was signed last July by Trump and extends tax cuts the president enacted in 2017, is expected to result in over $5 trillion in lost revenue through 2034, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the world's leading independent tax policy nonprofit.
Despite the underwhelming result, the BLM described Friday's ANWR lease sale as "successful," with agency Director Steve Pearce calling it "another important step toward restoring American Energy Dominance and responsibly developing the vast resources Congress directed us to make available in the Coastal Plain."
Friday's lease sale was the third such auction, the first of which was held in 2021 during Trump's first term and generated just 1% of the administration's projected revenue. The Biden administration—which canceled the leases issued in the 2021 sale—held another lease auction last year because Trump's 2017 tax cut law required two ANWR lease sales within seven years. The 2025 auction drew no bidders.
Green groups and other drilling opponents warned that Friday's flop does not diminish the threat posed by fossil fuel development in ANWR, which is home to the North Slope Iñupiat and the Gwich’in peoples and 270 animal species, including all of the world’s remaining South Beaufort Sea polar bears and the 200,000 porcupine caribou upon which the Gwich'in—who call the area the "sacred place where life begins—rely upon for their survival. The North Slope Iñupiat broadly support drilling and called Friday's lease sale "an important milestone."
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life in one of the nation’s most wild and beautiful landscapes," Earthjustice—one of the groups leading a lawsuit challenging the lease sales—said in a statement. "All of today’s leases are in important polar bear habitat, for example."
Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club's director of lands protection, said that "today's lease sale was another embarrassment and broken promise. The Trump administration has pushed leasing out the Arctic Refuge as the way to finance huge tax cuts, yet today generated $3.7 million for the federal government."
“Let's call that what it is, another scam to trick Americans into giving away our precious natural world," Manuel continued. "It does nothing to change the reality that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains a risky, controversial, and fundamentally flawed proposition."
"For years, the public was promised that sacrificing the refuge would generate significant economic benefits," Manuel added. "Instead, this leasing program has been plagued by uncertainty while putting one of America's most important public lands at risk."
Autumn Hanna, vice president of the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said, "From two previous failed lease sales that delivered less than 1% of promised revenue, taxpayers already know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a bad deal."
"Today’s lease sale is yet another reminder that oil and gas development in the refuge is high-risk, low-reward, with zero interest from real industry players," Hanna added. "Americans will not see relief at the pump and, instead, face greater risks from the drilling in a sensitive region.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Direct Attack on the Health of Americans': Trump EPA Greenlights More Mercury Pollution
Sierra Club said the rollback "puts the public at greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and even premature death, as well as causing severe neurological damage to fetuses and children.”
Feb 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday finalized its rollback of clean air regulations limiting mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants, sparking condemnation from public health and environmental advocates who warned that the move will increase the risk of death or serious illness for millions of people in the United States.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it is repealing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were implemented during the Biden administration in order to protect people from mercury and other toxic air pollutants—including arsenic, lead, and chromium—from fossil fuel power plants.
The Trump administration contends that rescinding MATS will lower financial costs for utilities running older coal-fired plants during a period of rapidly rising demand from consumer and data centers powering artificial intelligence systems.
“The Biden-Harris administration’s anti-coal regulations sought to regulate out of existence this vital sector of our energy economy," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said Friday at the Mills Creek Power Plant, a coal-fired facility in Louisville, Kentucky. "The Trump EPA knows that we can grow the economy, enhance baseload power, and protect human health and the environment all at the same time."
However, the Sierra Club said Friday that "rolling back the new and more protective [MATS] will allow coal- and oil-fired power plants to emit more damaging pollution that puts the public at greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and even premature death, as well as causing severe neurological damage to fetuses and children."
"According to the Sierra Club’s Trump Coal Pollution Dashboard, reversing the 2024 improvements and reverting to the 2012 standards will allow the dirtiest coal-fired power plants to emit 50% more mercury pollution," the group added. "In May 2025, the Trump administration exempted 68 power plants—including some of the biggest polluters in the nation—from MATS after soliciting exemption requests from big polluters over email."
Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign director Laurie Williams called the MATS rollback "a direct attack on the health of Americans."
Last June, Sierra Club was a key part of a coalition of environmental and community groups that sued the Trump administration over the exemptions.
“These protections from mercury and other toxic pollution existed to protect communities from reckless polluters," Sierra Club campaign organizing strategist Bonnie Swinford said Friday. "By repealing these protections, the Trump administration is giving handouts to the coal industry elites—and waging war on the public’s ability to hold polluters accountable."
The Environmental Protect Network also decried the MATS repeal, saying it "will allow hundreds of facilities across 45 states to avoid meeting critical safety standards—jeopardizing public health, degrading ecosystems, and disproportionately harming children, pregnant people, and communities already overburdened by pollution."
"This is no way to make America healthy again."
Moms Clean Air Force co-founder and director Dominique Browning focused on the harms to children the rollback will inflict.
"The science is clear, and profoundly alarming. No amount of mercury is safe for babies’ developing brains," she said. "Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that damages the architecture of babies’ and children’s developing brains."
“The mercury rules were working," Browning argued. "Toxic emissions from US coal plants were dropping, and water bodies were getting cleaner. But now EPA Administrator Zeldin’s rollback... will allow coal plants to emit more toxic heavy metals like mercury, chromium, and lead—pollutants that contaminate our air, fall into our lakes and waterways, and poison our food supply."
"This is no way to make America healthy again," she added, referring to one of President Donald Trump's campaign slogans.
Julie McNamara, associate policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement Friday: “Once again, the Trump administration is abandoning science and abandoning statute to give polluters a free pass. And once again, the Trump administration is doing so at the expense of people’s health."
National Resources Defense Council senior attorney John Walke asserted that "the coal industry is in decline, and dismantling clean air protections won’t bring it back."
“It will only lead to more asthma attacks, more heart problems, and more premature deaths, especially in communities living in the shadow of coal plants," Walke added. "We have a right to breathe clean air, and we will fight for that right even if Trump’s EPA refuses to.”
The EPA’s newest decision will allow power plants to emit more brain-damaging mercury and dangerous soot pollution, putting frontline communities at especially greater risk of heart and lung disease, cancer, and premature death.
[image or embed]
— NRDC (@nrdc.org) February 20, 2026 at 9:09 AM
Friday's EPA announcement followed the agency's repeal earlier this month of the endangerment finding, the Obama-era rule empowering climate regulation over the past 15 years that treated six greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels as a single air pollutant for regulatory purposes.
Speaking at a Friday press conference in Washington, DC organized by Moms Clean Air Force, Talia, a local fourth grade student, said that “climate disasters are becoming more common, and they’re hurting our planet, our health, and the future of kids like me."
“Adults in the government are supposed to protect kids from climate change and not ignore it," she said, adding in a message to Trump officials that "we are taught to listen to scientists and doctors and moms—why don’t you listen to them?”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Sues Trump Admin Over 'Unlawful' Approval of LNG Export Project
A lawyer for the plaintiffs argues that the Department of Energy "is using an untested loophole to avoid considering the impacts of this project on Americans’ health and on the environment."
Feb 17, 2026
A coalition of green groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday contesting the Trump administration's approval of what would be one of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities—permission granted despite the project's threats to frontline communities, the environment, and climate.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice are representing the Sierra Club, which is suing the US Department of Energy (DOE) for approving Venture Global’s application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, terminal, which is now under construction in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
“We’re suing over DOE’s unlawful approval of this facility that will increase climate-warming pollution and do nothing to lower energy costs for Americans,” NRDC senior attorney Caroline Reiser said. “DOE is using an untested loophole to avoid considering the impacts of this project on Americans’ health and on the environment. The agency also failed to consider how LNG exports could increase US energy prices.”
As Earthjustice explained:
CP2’s pollution, traffic, sprawl, and visual impact would add to the harms the nine overburdened local Gulf Coast communities located near the facility already experience from nearby existing LNG terminals. These communities already bear the burden of other heavy industry and are on the frontlines of the bigger hurricanes and storms fueled by the worsening climate crisis. Approving CP2’s exports will add to environmental injustice, fuel additional climate change, and increase prices for domestic consumers.
CP2 is one of the key projects in what climate campaigners called a "staggering" LNG expansion under former President Joe Biden. In January 2024, his administration announced a temporary pause on DOE approvals of pending and future LNG export applications to nations with which the US did not have free trade agreements. A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump later ruled the pause illegal.
The United States is the world’s leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a “bridge fuel”—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Trump's DOE—headed by former fracking CEO Chris Wright—granted preliminary approval to CP2 last March, with the final green light coming in October. If built as planned, it would export around 20 million metric tons per year of LNG.
"The estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas from this methane gas would be more than the annual emissions of 47 million gas-powered cars, or 54 coal-fired power plants," said NRDC.
CP2 construction has already harmed local communities in Cameron Parish—especially local fishers. Last summer, dredging despoiled hundreds of acres of marshland, burying crab traps and oyster beds, and killing wildlife including the crabs, fish, and shrimp upon which fishers depend for their livelihood.
“We’re routinely seeing less and less catch. LNG has polluted our waters and disrupted the wildlife," one local fisher and dock manager said last year. "The shrimp just do not want to come in because of the LNG projects.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Massive Buildout of Data Centers Powered by Gas Is the Opposite of Affordability
When our utility companies fail to build enough low-cost clean electricity and instead increase their reliance on expensive fossil fuel power plants—as many are doing in response to data center demand—electricity prices rise.
Feb 11, 2026
This past year, our communities were hit with skyrocketing power bills as electricity prices increased at double the rate of inflation. A new Sierra Club tool shows that, to make matters worse, utility companies in the US are planning a massive gas buildout, and it’s going to cost everyday American families even more.
The Sierra Club’s new gas plant tracker shows that utilities are planning to build 271 gigawatts of new gas power plant capacity at over 480 more expensive, polluting gas plants. This is over 40% more than all the coal capacity that is still online. This level of buildout would increase currently online gas power plant capacity by nearly 50% nationwide.
These companies have drastically increased their plans for new gas in the last few years, more than doubling planned gas power plants since the start of 2020.
This is a massive proposed buildout of new fossil fuel infrastructure that stretches across the country; new gas power plants are currently planned in 42 states. Texas has the most planned gas power plant capacity of any state followed by Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, and Arizona.
Data center developers and utilities can stop this onslaught of plans for new gas power plants and rely on affordable, available clean energy options instead.
What do these states, spanning across the country, have in common? Data centers. All of these states face major data center proposals.
Gas power plants already provide more electricity for data center use than any other fuel, and that portion is predicted to grow without more renewable buildout. In 2024 in the US, new data center demand rivaled the amount of clean energy brought online. Data center demand is set to far exceed clean energy additions in 2025 through 2028.
Data center demand projections are still highly uncertain, meaning this level of demand may not materialize. Instead of carefully assessing this uncertainty, utilities have been too quick to propose ever more gas power plants, leaving customers on the hook to foot the bill.
Southern Company, which operates electric utilities primarily in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, has the most planned gas power plant capacity of any parent company—over 20 gigawatts. This planned gas buildout is directly tied to data center proposals; for example, in Georgia, Southern subsidiary Georgia Power is planning a historic buildout of new resources specifically to serve growing demand, which is driven by data centers. What does Georgia Power want to make up the majority of that buildout? New gas power plants.
If you’ve recently looked at your utility bill and wondered why your energy costs have skyrocketed, you’re not alone. In 2025, households on average paid nearly 10% more on their utility bills than in 2024, outpacing wage growth and overall inflation. These plans to add even more gas power plants will continue to drive up our bills.
When a utility company decides to build a new gas power plant, the money it takes to build and maintain it does not come from the utility’s CEO or the Big Tech companies who want more electricity; we pay for the gas power plant in our utility bills every month. The cost of building and maintaining gas power plants has significantly and persistently increased in the US, contributing to increased prices for customers across the country. In contrast, the cost of renewables continues to fall.
When our utility companies fail to build enough low-cost clean electricity and instead increase their reliance on expensive fossil fuel power plants—as many are doing in response to data center demand—electricity prices rise.
In Virginia, for example, Dominion Energy is planning to build a massive new gas power plant that will cost Virginians at least $8 billion by the utility’s own estimates over the lifetime of the plant; the gas power plant is part of a buildout that Dominion says is necessary due to data center growth. Dominion projects that residential electric bills will more than double over the next 15 years, primarily due to data centers’ growing energy needs.
In Missouri, Ameren wants to build multiple new gas power plants to serve data centers. A single one of those gas power plants is expected to cost $900 million up front, before taking into account the volatile cost of fuel and maintenance needed throughout the plant’s lifetime. The same story is playing out across the country.
We deserve better. Data center developers and utilities can stop this onslaught of plans for new gas power plants and rely on affordable, available clean energy options instead. With proper planning, both data center developers and utilities can be part of the solution. In the meantime, we’ll continue to track utilities’ plans for new gas power plants, and you can join us to push utilities and data center developers to make better, cheaper, healthier decisions.Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Doubles Down on Fossil Fuels, Courts Let Offshore Wind Projects Resume Construction
"The unilateral court victories are evidence of what we've known all along—Donald Trump has it out for offshore wind, but we aren’t giving up without a fight," said a Sierra Club senior adviser.
Feb 02, 2026
While President Donald Trump's administration on Monday again made its commitment to planet-wrecking fossil fuels clear, a Republican-appointed judge in Washington, DC dealt yet another blow to the Department of the Interior's attacks on offshore wind power.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, issued a preliminary injunction allowing the developer of the Sunrise Wind project off New York to resume construction during the court battle over the department's legally dubious move to block this and four other wind farms along the East Coast under the guise of national security concerns.
Lamberth previously issued a similar ruling for Revolution Wind off Rhode Island—which, like Sunrise, is a project of the Danish company Ørsted. Other judges did so for Empire Wind off New York, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, and Vineyard Wind off Massachusetts, meaning Monday's decision was the fifth defeat for the administration.
Ørsted said in a Monday statement that the Sunrise "will resume construction work as soon as possible, with safety as the top priority, to deliver affordable, reliable power to the State of New York." The company also pledged to "determine how it may be possible to work with the US administration to achieve an expeditious and durable resolution."
Welcoming Lamberth's decision as "a big win for New York workers, families, and our future," Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul stressed that "it puts union workers back on the job, keeps billions in private investment in New York, and delivers the clean, reliable power our grid needs, especially as extreme weather becomes more frequent."
Despite the series of defeats, the Big Oil-backed Trump administration intends to keep fighting the projects. As E&E News reported:
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers reiterated in a response Monday that Trump has been clear that "wind energy is the scam of the century."
"The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people," Rogers said. "The administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue."
The Interior Department said it had no comment at this time due to pending litigation.
Still, advocates for wind energy and other efforts to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency are celebrating the courts' consistent rejections of the Trump administration's "abrupt attempt to halt construction on these fully permitted projects," as Hillary Bright, executive director of the pro-wind group Turn Forward, put it Monday.
"Taken together, these five offshore wind projects represent nearly 6 gigawatts of new electricity now under construction along the East Coast, enough power to serve 2.5 million American homes and businesses," she noted. "At a time when electricity demand is rising rapidly and grid reliability is under increasing strain, these projects represent critically needed utility-scale power sources that are making progress toward completion."
"We hope the consistent outcomes in court bode well for the completion of these projects," Bright said. "Energy experts and grid operators alike recognize that offshore wind is a critical reliability resource for densely populated coastal regions, particularly during periods of high demand. Delaying or obstructing these projects only increases the risk of higher costs and greater instability for ratepayers."
"After five rulings and five clear outcomes, it is time to move past litigation-driven uncertainty and allow these projects to finish the job they were approved to do," she argued. "Offshore wind strengthens American energy security, supports domestic manufacturing and construction jobs, and delivers reliable power where it is needed most. We need to leverage this resource, not hold it back."
Sierra Club senior adviser Nancy Pyne similarly said that "the unilateral court victories are evidence of what we've known all along—Donald Trump has it out for offshore wind, but we aren't giving up without a fight. Communities deserve a cleaner, cheaper, healthier future, and offshore wind will help us get there."
"Despite the roadblocks Donald Trump has tried to throw up in an effort to bolster dirty fossil fuels, offshore wind will prevail," she predicted. "We will continue to call for responsible and equitable offshore wind from coast to coast, as we fight for an affordable and reliable clean energy future for all."
Allyson Samuell, a Sierra Club senior campaign representative in the state, highlighted that beyond the climate benefits of the project, "we are glad to see Sunrise Wind's 800 workers, made up largely of local New Yorkers, get back to work."
"Once constructed, Sunrise Wind will supply 600,000 local homes with affordable, reliable, renewable energy—this power is super needed and especially important during extreme cold snaps and winter storms like Storm Fern," Samuell said in the wake of the dangerous weather. "Here in New York, South Fork has proven offshore wind works, now is the time to see Sunrise, and Empire Wind, come online too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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