President Donald Trump has issued an order that takes aim at state and local climate change laws and policies, including California’s landmark market program for reducing greenhouse gases.
Trump’s executive order directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify state and local acts that may be unconstitutional or preempted by federal law.
Within 60 days, the attorney general must report back to the president with findings and recommendations for action.
The order specifically singles out California’s cap and trade program, a market-based system created in 2012 that is considered one of the state’s key policies for combating climate change.
This program sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell credits.
Twelve other states have similar trade programs designed to cut greenhouse gases.
In his order, Trump states, “California, for example, punishes carbon use by adopting impossible caps on the amount of carbon businesses may use, all but forcing businesses to pay large sums to ‘trade’ carbon credits to meet California’s radical requirements.”
The announcement comes as the Trump administration aims to boost domestic oil and gas production, sidelining efforts to develop wind and solar energy.
Trump’s order characterizes state regulations as “illegitimate impediments” to domestic energy production for oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and other energy sources.
Notably, the order mockingly placed the term “climate change” in quotation marks to emphasize its perceived skepticism towards the issue.
Some legal experts have called the order an overreach, disputing the president’s claims that states are exceeding their authority or that their climate programs are unconstitutional.
“The implication that the attorney general can just go out and declare this state law is unconstitutional and that therefore it’s no longer a valid law — that is the big problem with this,” said Margaret A. Coulter, a senior climate attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
She added that it appears to be more of an intimidation tactic than a legally sound approach.
Amy Turner, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, emphasized that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment grants states the authority to set their own rules in areas where the federal government has not acted.
“In other words, the federal government cannot simply grab powers because it wants to; doing so would in no uncertain terms represent a constitutional crisis,” Turner wrote.
Despite the order not directly challenging, prohibiting, or arguing that state or local law is preempted, experts believe it could lead to significant legal challenges and affect the innovation of state policies.
Turner noted that the order “is likely a forerunner to litigation, lawmaking, or the withholding of federal funds,” potentially creating a “significant chilling effect on local climate policy innovation.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta did not immediately respond to inquiries seeking comment on Trump’s order.
Previously, the first Trump administration sued California over its cap-and-trade program, which is linked to a program in Canada, alleging the state was entering into an international treaty.
However, Trump lost that lawsuit when the judge ruled that the administration failed to provide any evidence that cap and trade undermines the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign policy.
In his latest order, Trump claimed that state climate policies and laws “unduly discriminate” against fossil fuel companies and “impose arbitrary and excessive fines without legitimate justification,” ultimately raising energy costs for Americans.
“These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand,” the order states.
Trump has also aimed criticism at laws in New York and Vermont that established climate funds requiring fossil fuel companies to contribute to a fund for climate adaptation.
These funds are designed to cover the rising costs associated with extreme weather events.
Moreover, the executive order targets civil actions against fossil fuel companies, with California leading efforts to make these companies pay billions for damages caused by climate change, which they have long denied responsibility for.
Trump described these programs as “extorting” money from oil companies.
The oil industry has been pushing for a more aggressive legal stance from the Trump administration against state-level climate accountability efforts.
Industry groups have encouraged the Justice Department to either back their lawsuits or initiate federal challenges against states like New York and Vermont, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.
California is contemplating similar legislation, with a bill introduced by Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat from Van Nuys, that would require fossil fuel companies to cover the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, welcomed the order, asserting that it seeks to “hold states like New York and California accountable for pursuing unconstitutional efforts that illegally penalize U.S. oil and natural gas producers for delivering the energy American consumers rely on every day.”
image source from：https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2025/04/trump-order-california-climate-laws/
