President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday to find ways to block climate laws across the country, putting Washington in his crosshairs once more.
The executive order comes as the latest example of Trump’s willingness to impose his will on states and cities moving in the opposite direction. In this case, he’s targeting governments wanting to cut greenhouse gas emissions, guard against the worsening effects of climate change or protect especially vulnerable people from disasters.
Washington’s Climate Commitment Act and Clean Energy Transformation Act fit the description; though state officials say they’re prepared to defend against attacks from the federal government.
“These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy,” Trump wrote in his order. “They should not stand.”
Instead, Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to expand the country’s reliance on coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels that churn greenhouse gases into the environment, exacerbating the effects of climate change, which are already being felt across the world.
In doing so, Trump is brushing aside decades of climate science in the name of energy and economic domination. But the order likely doesn’t hold any water, legally speaking, attorneys say. Others called it flat-out illegal.
The executive order
Trump’s order specifically tells Bondi to target state and local laws surrounding “‘climate change’ or involving ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives, ‘environmental justice’, carbon or ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions and funds to collect carbon penalties or taxes.”
Within 60 days, the attorney general must then submit a report recommending how to kill the laws.
That’s a broad directive. It mentions a few examples specifically, including New York and Vermont requiring polluters to pay for state climate adaptation, and California’s carbon market.
Washington isn’t specifically mentioned but the 2021 Climate Commitment Act created a carbon market and requires the state’s top polluters to buy allowances for the greenhouse gases they emit. The state is now trying to link its program with the joint market between California and the Canadian province of Quebec.
Washington’s climate policies
The 2019 Clean Energy Transformation Act could also be targeted. That law requires the state to free its electrical grid of greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
The president’s potential attack on the CCA is the latest in a long line of challenges to the policy. Already the state’s carbon market has survived several serious lawsuits, and in November 62% of voters sided with the policy over a repeal effort. Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Nick Brown, said the office is studying Trump’s order and is prepared to defend Washington’s climate laws against “any and all challenges.”
Former state Sen. Joe Nguyễn, who now directs Washington’s Department of Commerce, called Trump’s order a distraction from the problems at hand, including the growing electrical demand and rush to add more renewable power sources.
“I’d be much happier if my job was focused on building housing and energy,” Nguyễn said. “Not reacting to unnecessary executive orders that cause huge disruptions in our community for political gain.”
Without congressional authority, the federal government can’t override state laws, Nguyễn said.
Others piled on, criticizing Trump’s order.
Washington — like the rest of the world — is already suffering from climate change and its broadly supported laws are designed to protect its future, said Alyssa Macy, CEO of Washington Conservation Action and a citizen of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Oregon.
“This executive order isn’t worth more than the paper it’s written on because Washington has a fundamental right to ensure its citizens have clean air and water and to hold polluters accountable,” Macy said.
“Pure intimidation”
Maggie Coulter, a senior attorney for the environmental nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, called Trump’s order unconstitutional in an email. There’s no “legal punch” behind the move, she said.
“It’s pure intimidation at a time when states are leading the charge on enacting new ‘polluter pays’ legislation” like those in New York and Vermont, Coulter said.
Twice already the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on attempts to kill claims against fossil fuel companies, giving more weight to existing legislation, Coulter added.
While an outright legal victory seems unlikely for Trump, said Aseem Prakash, a political scientist with the University of Washington, the administration might still benefit from tying states and cities up in lengthy and expensive legal battles. Similar to his recent capitulation on global tariffs, Trump could still claim victory, he said.
“This is all about politics and posturing,” Prakash said. “It’s not about results.”
Trump could still withhold federal funding for states and cities with these climate policies, Prakash said. He’s already made a practice out of the approach.
All this could backfire, though.
As states see their budgets battered by climate change (Trump is also slashing federal disaster recovery money), the prospect of forcing polluters to pay for damage is growing, Coulter said.
Now in its third year, Washington’s carbon market is up and running with nearly full participation from major polluters and has raised more than $2 billion for climate projects across the state. Over time, the state will ratchet down the quantity of emissions these polluters are allowed to churn out each year, thereby reducing their dependence on fossil fuels.
Also, climate change is a popular issue across the country, Prakash said. Trump’s ongoing attacks on such popular policies are likely to consolidate Democratic opposition.
And there’s no shortage of people and politicians willing to emerge as climate heroes in the Trump era, Prakash said.
Seattle Times reporter Isabella Breda contributed to this report.
