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
public citizen
'This Executive Order is Illegal': Trump Attacks Half-Century of Environmental Protections in One Fell Swoop
"This chaotic administration is obviously desperate to smash through every environmental guardrail that protects people or preserves wildlife, but steps like this will be laughed out of court," said one advocate.
Apr 11, 2025
Numerous environmental protection groups were preparing to file lawsuits Friday after President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to repeal what he called "unlawful regulations" aimed at protecting the public from pollution, oil spills, and other harms—sharply curtailing the process through which rules are changed as he ordered agencies to "sunset" major regulations.
The order was issued a week-and-a-half before the deadline set by another presidential action in February, when Trump required agencies to identify "unconstitutional" and "unlawful" regulations for elimination or modification within 60 days.
Those restrictions, under Wednesday evening's order, can be repealed without being subject to a typical notice-and-comment period.
Trump named the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement among several agencies affected by the order, and listed more than two dozen laws containing regulations that must incorporate a sunset provision for no later than September 30, 2025.
The laws include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, suggested the order was Trump's latest push to benefit corporate polluters.
The Trump corporate regime orders agencies to ‘sunset’ environmental protections, as part of an effort to make it easier for industry to pollute. thehill.com/policy/energ...
[image or embed]
— Hans Kristensen (@nukestrat.bsky.social) April 11, 2025 at 7:14 AM
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was "beyond delusional" for Trump to attempt to repeal "every environmental safeguard enacted over the past 50 years with an executive order."
"Trump's farcical directive aims to kill measures that protect endangered whales, prevent oil spills, and reduce the risk of a nuclear accident," said Hartl. "This chaotic administration is obviously desperate to smash through every environmental guardrail that protects people or preserves wildlife, but steps like this will be laughed out of court."
In a memo, the White House wrote that "in effectuating repeals of facially unlawful regulations, agency heads shall finalize rules without notice and comment, where doing so is consistent with the 'good cause' exception in the Administrative Procedure Act."
"That exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,'" said the White House.
As climate advocates scoffed at the suggestion that regulating nuclear power and pollution-causing energy infrastructure is "contrary to the public interest," legal experts questioned the legality of Trump's order.
"If this action were upheld, it would be a significant change to the way regulation is typically done, which is through notice and comment," Roger Nober, director of George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center, toldGovernment Executive. "If the agencies determine that a rule is contrary to the Supreme Court's current jurisprudence, then [this order says they] have good cause to remove it and [they] can get around notice and comment. That's certainly an untested and untried way of implementing the Administrative Procedure Act."
Georgetown University law professor William Buzbee toldThe Hill that the Supreme Court "has repeatedly reaffirmed that agencies seeking to change a policy set forth in a regulation have to go through a new notice-and-comment proceeding for each regulation, offer 'good reasons' for the change, and address changing facts and reliance interests developed in light of the earlier regulation."
"Adding a sunset provision without going through a full notice-and-comment proceedings for each regulation to be newly subject to a sunset provision seems intended to skirt the vetting and public accountability required by consistency doctrine," he said. "Like many other attempted regulatory shortcuts of the first and second Trump administration, this [executive order] seems likely to prompt legally vulnerable agency actions."
Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert suggested that the executive order is the latest example of Trump's push to govern the U.S. as "a king."
"He cannot simply roll back regulations that protect the public without going through the legally required process," Gilbert told Government Executive. "We will challenge this blatantly unlawful deregulatory effort at every step to ensure it doesn't hurt workers, consumers, and families."
Michael Wall, chief litigation officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the order "a blatant attempt to blow away hundreds of protections for the public and nature, giving polluters permission to ignore whatever is coming out of their smokestacks while developers disregard endangered species protections and Big Oil no longer heeds the reforms put in place after the Deepwater Horizon disaster."
"This executive order is illegal," he said. "Congress passed these laws, and the president's constitutional duty is to carry out those statutes; he has zero power to rewrite them."
"There's no magic wand the administration might wave to sweep away multiple rules on a White House whim," Wall added. "Any changes to the rules the president wants rescinded would have to be justified, rule by rule, with facts, evidence, and analysis specific to that rule. He cannot do this by fiat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis of Lobbying in 2024 Shows Clear Target: A Tax Code Forever Favorable to Corporations
"Conversations on Capitol Hill about federal tax policy were dominated by those representing corporate and wealthy interests," said one leader at Public Citizen.
Apr 10, 2025
As the GOP forges ahead with a tax plan that would primarily benefit the wealthy, the watchdog Public Citizen published a report Thursday which found that the vast majority of tax lobbyists' work in 2024 was done on behalf of corporate clients.
Although the Republican tax and spending bill is taking shape in 2025, not 2024, Public Citizen's report suggests that the general thrust of the tax bill—tax cuts that largely benefit the rich and could lead to a massive slashing of programs including Medicaid—can be explained in part due to the power of corporate lobbying.
"Conversations on Capitol Hill about federal tax policy were dominated by those representing corporate and wealthy interests," said Susan Harley, managing director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, in a statement Thursday. "The Trump-Republican tax proposal is a policy of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich."
Republicans are aiming to extend expiring provisions of President Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts (TCJA), and also enact additional cuts. On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a budget blueprint that gets the GOP one step closer to securing the spending and cuts sought by Trump.
According to Public Citizen's report, most of the corporations and corporate trade associations that were the largest hirers of tax lobbyists in 2024 lobbied specifically on the TCJA.
Most of the TCJA's provisions that impact businesses, like cutting the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, do not expire—though Trump has said that he would like to see the corporate tax rate further cut, to 15%.
In its analysis, Public Citizen also highlighted that a deduction for "pass-through" businesses—whose owners report their share of profits as taxable income under the individual income tax—is set to expire, though pass-through businesses on average tend to be smaller businesses than their counterparts who pay corporate income tax. Pass-through businesses include sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, and S-corporations.
To compile its report, Public Citizen searched all federal lobbying disclosures for 2024 to compile a list of all lobbyists who indicated that they lobbied on "tax issues" (the report notes how they define lobbying on "tax issues").
More than 6,000 lobbyists swarmed Capitol Hill in 2024 to lobby on tax issues, the group found, which amounts to nearly half of all federal lobbyists. Public Citizen highlighted that by comparison, there are only 535 members of Congress.
Out of the top 100 entities hiring the most lobbyists to work on tax issues in 2024, all but two represented corporate interests, according to the report.
The corporate trade group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce topped the list with 99 lobbyists. Other top hirers of tax lobbyists included the telecommunications company Verizon and the global financial technology platform Intuit.
However, according to Public Citizen, counting the number of unique lobbyists does not reveal the "true scope" of lobbying taking place. For example, five new corporations could start lobbying on the same tax issue, but if they hired a lobbyist who had already been working on that tax issue, looking at the individual number of lobbyists would not register this increase in lobbying activity, per the report.
That means that counting the number of "unique lobbyist client relationships" reveals a more accurate picture of lobbying activity.
According to the report, clients sent more than 10,500 lobbyists to influence tax issues on average for each quarter in 2024, and more than 85% of those lobbyists represented corporate interests each quarter.
The report notes that "many of the 15% of entities categorized as not representing corporate interests are likely not lobbying against such interests. Our methodology is conservative. Many nonprofit hospital systems, for example, operate similarly to for-profit entities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Approves 'Modern-Day Poll Tax' With Passage of Orwellian SAVE Act
"Congressional Republicans' anti-voting legislation is a power grab to silence the voices of American citizens—full stop," said one advocate.
Apr 10, 2025
The U.S. House's passage of a bill on Thursday that would require Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation when they register to vote was the Republican Party's response to the fact, said one progressive critic, that "every day more people are catching on to their big grift."
"H.R. 22 is how they plan to keep themselves in power," said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, of the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. "Not by making life easier for working people, but by making voting harder."
The bill, proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would require all Americans to present a passport or an original copy of their birth certificate in person when they register to vote and update their voter registration—purporting to combat what Republicans have falsely claimed is a "problem that affects voters in nearly all 50 states": that of noncitizens voting in federal elections.
With noncitizens already barred from voting in federal elections, numerous analyses have found that very few ballots have ever been cast by people who aren't U.S. citizens. The Brennan Center for Justice found that noncitizens were suspected of casting just 30 votes out of 23.5 million in 2016—or 0.0001% of all votes cast.
But the Brennan Center was among many rights advocacy groups warning Thursday that more than 21 million Americans don't have easy access to their birth certificates or a passport, and could be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act.
"The House has just passed one of the worst pieces of voting legislation in American history," said Michael Waldman, the group's president and CEO. "The Senate must stop it. The SAVE Act would put voting out of reach for millions of American citizens. It should not become law."
According to Public Citizen, the SAVE Act has the potential to stop tens of millions of Americans from voting.
About 146 million citizens don't have a passport—nearly as many as the 153 million people who voted in the 2014 presidential election, Public Citizen noted.
The bill could also disenfranchise up to 69 million women and 4 million men who have changed their names after marrying, as they wouldn't be able to use their birth certificates showing their names at birth to prove their citizenship.
Voters in states including West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, where less than one-third of citizens have a valid passport, could be most impacted by the SAVE Act's requirements.
"The SAVE Act is an assault on a fundamental American freedom—our ability to vote," said Gilbert. "A set of eligible voters who were able to participate in past elections—some who have been registered for decades—will now be unable to cast their ballots."
Along with making voting harder for people in rural areas, naturalized citizens, low-income voters, Native Americans, first-time voters, and people of color—many of whom lack easy access to citizenship documents—the SAVE Act would end voter registration drives, upend online voter registration systems that are used in 42 states, and make it harder for voters to register by mail. States would also be required to establish programs to purge existing voter rolls.
President Donald Trump and the Republicans, said Mitchell, "want to weaken the opposition to their pro-billionaire agenda, even if that means taking away our freedom to vote. But we refuse to be silenced, and we will do everything in our power to stop their shameless power grab."
Four Democratic House members—Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ed Case (D-Hawaii)—joined the Republicans in supporting the legislation.
Common Cause denounced the four Democrats for their vote "to suppress the vote of millions of Americans."
Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the SAVE Act should be called "what it is: a modern-day poll tax."
"If this bill becomes law, millions of hardworking Americans will have to either shell out money getting the right papers to prove their citizenship or have no say in the next election for Congress and president," said Kase Solomón.
The point of the bill, she said, is "to make it so difficult to vote that many people will give up on voting all together."
In the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a companion bill earlier this year. The GOP, which holds 53 Senate seats while the Democrats hold 47, would need Democrats to join them to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold in order to pass the bill.
"Every U.S. senator who cares about protecting our right to the ballot must vote down this poll tax in any form," said Kase Solomón. "Common Cause and our 1.5 million members will make sure every senator hears from the people that this bill is dead on arrival."
Tony Carrk, executive director of the government watchdog group Accountable.US, said the SAVE Act also "paves the way to toss out legal votes and undermine election results that [the Republicans] don't like."
"Congressional Republicans' anti-voting legislation is a power grab to silence the voices of American citizens—full stop," said Carrk. “Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their allies in Congress are attacking voting by threatening Americans' ability to vote by mail, allowing Musk's [Department of Government Efficiency] to access sensitive personal information, and kneecapping states' ability to run free and fair elections."
"It should send a chill down the spine of every American," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular