Feed aggregator

Territory’s voluntary move comes as Trump administration makes good on pledge to end lawsuits against oil and gas

Puerto Rico has voluntarily dismissed its 2024 climate lawsuit against big oil, a Friday legal filing shows, just two days after the US justice department sued two states over planned litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis.

Puerto Rico’s lawsuit, filed in July, alleged that the oil and gas giants had misled the public about the climate dangers associated with their products. It came as part of a wave of litigation filed by dozens of US states, cities and municipalities in recent years.

Continue reading...

The Trump administration sued to block two state laws designed to force oil companies to pay the costs of climate change. Several other states are joining the fight, too.

The organizations said they would publish researchers’ work even after the Trump administration decision to dismiss all authors on the project.

Patience Nabukalu, who has experienced climate-related flooding, joins protestors from around the world to deliver a letter to CEO Georges Elhedery criticising the financing of oil, gas and coal projects

At nine years old, Patience Nabukalu was devastated when her friend, Kevin, died in severe flooding that hit their Kampala suburb, Nateete, a former wetland. Witnessing deaths and the destruction of homes and livelihoods in floods made worse by extreme rainfall has had a profound impact on her.

She decided to try to bring about change – to do what she could to amplify the voices of those in the Ugandan communities worst affected by the climate crisis.

Continue reading...

Tariff chaos hampers Trump’s pledge to ‘drill, baby, drill’, but analysis still shows surge in planet-heating emissions

• ‘A ruthless agenda’: charting 100 days of Trump’s onslaught on the environment

Donald Trump’s ambitions for the US to “drill, baby, drill” for more fossil fuels have ironically been hampered by the economic chaos unleashed by his own tariffs, but the US is still on track to increase oil and gas extraction, causing a surge in planet-heating emissions, a new analysis shows.

The US was already the world’s leading oil and gas power, producing more of the fossil fuels than any country in history during Joe Biden’s administration. But Trump has sought to escalate this further, declaring an “energy emergency” to open up more land and ocean for drilling and launching an unprecedented assault on environmental regulations in his first 100 days back in the White House.

Continue reading...

Met Service issues red warning amid deepening low pressure, while Europe experiences above average temperatures

Strong winds and flooding spread across New Zealand last week, with a state of emergency declared in Christchurch, after the country was battered by a destructive area of low pressure. A red warning, the highest warning level, was issued by the MetService (the national meteorological service).

The area of low pressure quickly deepened in the Tasman Sea off the west coast of New Zealand and travelled eastwards, with the centre of low pressure moving across the northern island and creating very strong winds, particularly through the Cook Strait, the body of water that separates the two islands. The wind direction was a south-easterly to southerly, which caused the winds to strengthen as they were funnelled between the islands.

Continue reading...

Warm weather means strawberries, aubergines and tomatoes have come weeks earlier than expected

A glut of early strawberries, aubergines and tomatoes has hit Britain with the dry, warm weather eliminating the usual “hungry gap”, growers say.

It has been a sunny, very dry spring, with the warmest start to May on record and temperatures predicted to reach up to 30C at the earliest point on record, forecasters have said.

Continue reading...

Depending on where things end up after Saturday, the biggest climate push may come from the crossbench

• Election 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaign
• Polls tracker; Election guide; Interactive seat explorer
• Party policies; Micro parties explained; Full election coverage
• Listen to the latest episode of our new narrative podcast series: Gina
• Get our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcast

If further confirmation was needed that the Peter Dutton-led Coalition would take Australia aggressively backwards on dealing with the climate crisis, his final election costings released on Thursday tell the story in black and white.

The Liberal and National parties plan to gut programs designed to cut emissions and help create green industries to give the country an industrial future as demand for fossil fuels falls. They also plan to ignore advice that Australian nature is in poor and deteriorating health and strip back already limited funding for environment programs.

Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

Continue reading...

The leading candidates in Saturday’s national election have starkly different policies on energy and global warming.

In an unusual move, the Trump administration pre-emptively sued Hawaii and Michigan to try to stop them from suing oil companies over global warming.

DoJ says Clean Air Act creates program to oversee air pollution and ‘displaces’ states’ ability to regulate it

The US justice department on Wednesday filed lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan over their planned legal action against fossil fuel companies for harms caused by the climate crisis, claiming the state actions conflict with federal government authority and Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

The suits, which legal experts say are unprecedented, mark the latest of the Trump administration’s attacks on environmental work and raise concern over states’ abilities to retain the power to take climate action without federal opposition.

Continue reading...

This week, the House of Representatives voted to block the state’s ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles, challenging its rule-making authority.

• Trump 100 days: tariffs, egg prices, Ice arrests and approval rating – in charts
• Trump 100 days: inside Trump’s whirlwind start to his second presidency

Donald Trump signed 141 executive orders since returning to the presidency in January, including enacting steep tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, curbing DEI and “gender radicalism” in the military, and pardoning January 6 rioters.

The US president promised in his inaugural speech that these orders would amount to a “complete restoration of America”.

Continue reading...

Continue reading...

After a series of fits and starts, and close votes, the House and Senate have now agreed (along partisan lines) on a budget resolution which will serve as the foundation for a potential reconciliation package. The adopted resolution sets dramatically different spending and revenue targets for the House compared to the Senate–a yawning gap that will have to be bridged at some point. House Committees receiving reconciliation instructions in the final resolution have now begun working on their specific pieces of the package. 

At the core of the majority’s agenda is a plan to use the reconciliation process to extend tax cuts that disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy. These tax cuts, which are set to expire under current law, plus additional spending priorities, come at a steep cost, estimated at approximately $5-6 trillion. As a result, the majority is also considering slashing spending to offset a small portion of that staggeringly high cost. This short-term calculus poses a dire threat to numerous UCS priorities, from clean energy, to electric vehicles, to sustainable agriculture, to climate resilience, to reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons.  

A post from February provided a broad overview of the Congressional budget reconciliation process as it was getting underway. That post summarized UCS plans to defend current budget priorities and highlight the disastrous impacts of the House and Senate spending plans. 

Here, a deeper dive into what’s at risk—and what you can do to help. 

Defending Clean Energy 

Over the past few years, Congress enacted milestone legislative packages to support and advance the clean energy transition, from the technologies driving it, to the workforces powering it, to the manufacturing and supply chains enabling it, to the communities benefiting from it.  

As Julie McNamara writes, despite the well-documented and wide-reaching success of these policies, they are now at risk of repeal as the majority scrambles to cover the cost of their policy agenda, sacrificing proven economic winners for a vanishingly small offset. Moreover, gutting clean energy policies now will put further and immediate strain on an energy system already struggling to meet rapid growth in electricity demand, threatening skyrocketing electricity bills and surging pollution from increased reliance on heavily polluting, dangerous coal- and gas-fired power plants.  

Two of these key policy interventions are tax credits and grants and loans—and both are now at risk. 

Tax credits supporting the clean energy transition. A series of tax credits, identified by their section of the tax code, are helping to drive a surge of deployment in clean electricity generation (45Y/48E), investments in advanced manufacturing (45X), and individual investments in rooftop solar and cleaner and more efficient use of energy (including 25D and 25C).  

Recent policies also expanded the reach of incentives through a mechanism known as transferability, and access to incentives through a mechanism known as direct, or elective, pay. The former improves the efficiency and value of claimed incentives; the latter, which broadens access to incentives for non-taxable entities such as municipalities, Tribal entities, schools, and community centers, is delivering real savings with immediate impact in communities all across the country.  

Grants and loans supporting the clean energy transition. In addition to tax credits, previous Congresses enacted grant programs and expanded loan authorities intended to help build out the foundations of a forward-looking clean energy economy, such as increasing the capacity, reliability, and resilience of electricity infrastructure; reducing local air pollution in heavily burdened communities; supporting exploration of promising energy transition technologies; and lowering energy costs.  

Since the start of the Trump administration, these Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy programs have come under repeated attack, including multiple attempts by the administration to freeze, and subsequently rescind or cancel, projects without any evidence that recipients have violated project terms. These attacks, now the subject of ongoing litigation, have been deeply destabilizing for implicated businesses, workforces, host communities, and the broader innovation environment. 

The fight ahead: The majority in Congress is now threatening to use reconciliation as a means of repealing these tax credits and permanently rescinding these grants and loans. Repealing these proven policies and programs would send electricity prices soaring, slash promising workforce opportunities, cede US leadership in critical areas of innovation, increase climate- and health-harming pollution, restrict access to the benefits of the clean energy transition, and result in the cancellation of major investments in communities all across the country.  

Defending Clean Transportation 

Our outdated, fossil fuel–centered transportation system is the biggest contributor to global warming emissions and a major source of health-harming air pollution with inequitable impacts across the country. Fortunately, we’re on the cusp of a momentous transition in transportation—one that offers the opportunity to build a more sustainable, more equitable transportation system that gives everyone clean, affordable ways to get where they need to go. 

One of the best ways to reduce transportation pollution is by switching to electric. Replacing gasoline with electricity greatly reduces carbon emissions from driving, even when emissions from mining, manufacturing, and generating electricity are included. Recently published UCS analysis shows that driving the average EV in the US produces carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to a hypothetical 100 mpg gasoline car. 

Working with the prior Congress, the Biden Administration made significant progress in facilitating a transition to electric vehicles. A combination of consumer incentives, emissions standards, and infrastructure investments set the stage for a much cleaner transportation future – all of which could be reversed through this reconciliation process. 

Tax Credits Making it Easier to Switch to Electric Vehicles: Clean Vehicle Tax Credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act make it easier for drivers to switch to electric by reducing the upfront cost of electric cars and trucks, up to $7,500 for new vehicles (30D) or $4,000 for used vehicles (25E). These tax credits can be taken at “point-of-sale” – so the price reduction happens at the time of purchase, potentially reducing the down payment required or the amount financed (or both). The tax credits include income caps and vehicle cost caps which serve to exclude luxury vehicles and target the incentives towards lower and middle-income households, and the new vehicle credit includes supply chain requirements to incentivize domestic manufacturing. In addition, the Commercial Vehicle Tax Credit (45W) assists fleets by defraying upfront costs associated with purchasing a commercial clean vehicle with a tax credit of up to $40,000 per vehicle. The transition to zero emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles will usher in massive reductions in pollution as well as billions of dollars in savings to fleets, making this a huge win-win.  

Tax Credits Making it Easier to Charge Electric Vehicles – in the Locations that Need it the Most: The Alternative Fueling Infrastructure Tax Credit (30C) makes installing EV charging cheaper for both individual drivers and businesses. Individuals can offset the cost of home charging infrastructure with a tax credit of up to $1,000 per item. Businesses can offset the cost of charging infrastructure with a tax credit of up to $100,000 per item. The tax credit can support more direct current fast charging, whose speed is needed to serve drivers traveling long distances and heavy trucks that have large batteries. Notably, the tax credit is targeted to low-income and rural areas. While not a perfect proxy, this condition of the tax credit is meant to target those who need charging infrastructure support most. 

Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Standards at Risk: Some in Congress have floated the idea of repealing federal fuel efficiency (CAFE) and global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks through the reconciliation bill. These standards, finalized under the last administration, represent some of the largest actions ever taken on climate change, and would directly impact people’s wallets. Eliminating the global warming pollution rules would increase fuel and maintenance costs for new vehicles by $6,000 over the life of the vehicles, and rolling back the commonsense CAFE standards would increase fuel costs by $23 billion through 2050. 

New Fees Penalizing Clean Vehicle Drivers: Under the guise of “fairness,” some in Congress have proposed new annual fees of $250 for electric vehicles and $100 for hybrid vehicles to make up for the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). However, these fees are neither fair nor productive. The proposed fees on clean vehicles are blatantly punitive – far outweighing the contributions of gas-powered vehicles to HTF while barely making a dent in shortfall. This model also ignores the way roads are funded and the taxes that EV drivers already pay for electricity usage. The notion that EV drivers are getting a free ride is just plain wrong, thanks in part to taxes and fees levied at the state and local level, where more than 80 percent of road funding comes from. In 36 states, there is even already a net tax penalty for driving an EV compared to a gasoline vehicle thanks to the combination of taxes and fees already in place.  

The fight ahead: These tax credits and efficiency and emission standards have spurred increased domestic auto jobs and investments, increased the affordability of new and used electric vehicles for consumers, and charging infrastructure accessibility. We must ensure that the whole ecosystem of complementary policies remains in place to ensure the transition to clean vehicles is a win for consumers, jobs, and the environment. 

Defending Sustainable Agriculture 

The House and Senate Agriculture committees begin the reconciliation process with a huge gap in proposed funding cuts: the House Agriculture committee has been instructed to eliminate at least $230 billion in funding for agriculture programs, while the Senate minimum level for cuts is $1 billion. It’s not clear exactly how the two chambers will bridge this enormous divide, but the apparent plan by Republicans to cut a total of $1.5 trillion from the overall budget seems likely to increase pressure on Agriculture committee members to produce a final package of cuts that lands closer to the House number. 

The fight ahead: It appears likely that most (if not all) of these budget cuts will come at the expense of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to more than 42 million low-income Americans. While 80% of the US public supports increasing benefit levels for SNAP, it currently seems this is the most likely route for the Republican-led Agriculture Committees to pursue. 

While SNAP appears to be the most likely agriculture-related program to suffer significant reconciliation cuts, other programs—from conservation to agricultural research to rural development—could also be in danger of losing funds if legislators decide more money needs to be found to reach a final level to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.  

Defending Against Dangerous Military Spending  

The reconciliation bill would increase defense spending by $150 billion over four years, including enormous increases in spending on an already colossal program to rebuild the entire US nuclear arsenal, with money for new missiles, new submarines, new bombers, and new nuclear warheads for them to carry.  

The fight ahead: In particular, $1.5 billion is allocated for an unneeded, expensive, and dangerous new land-based, nuclear-armed missile, one that is already 81% over budget and so far behind schedule that there is currently no known date when it might be built. 

That money also includes $25 billion for President Trump’s “Golden Dome” version of the long-discredited missile defense scheme known during the Reagan Administration as Star Wars. Of that, up to $5.6 billion is for space-based interceptors, which are hugely destabilizing, accelerating the already growing global nuclear arms race.  

Defending Climate Resilience 

Across the nation, communities are struggling to cope with extreme weather and climate-fueled disasters, yet the Trump administration has attacked the agencies, staff, funding, and programs that can help build resilience and protect people and critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, the budget reconciliation process could be yet another pathway to codify these harmful actions. Some of the key things we are watching for include: 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Trump administration has cut FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, a critical program to help communities build resilience in advance of disasters. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act had allocated $1 billion for BRIC over five years, of which only $133 million has been distributed to date. Congress should reinstate this important program and not allow the Trump administration’s illegal overreach to be enacted into law.  

The administration has also recklessly fired FEMA staff and cut its budget, even as the summer Danger Season looms, and has threatened to shift an unfair burden of disaster response to states—which don’t have the resources to cope with major disasters without federal aid. The reconciliation process should not be used to cut the disaster relief fund or unfairly shift disaster response to states beyond their ability to cope. Homeland Security Secretary Noem has gone as far as to call for the complete dismantling of FEMA by October 1, which would be disastrous as my colleagues Shana Udvardy and Zoe Middleton explain. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle understand the crucial importance of FEMA for their constituents and should push back strongly against any such extreme notion.  

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA has come under relentless attacks from the Trump administration, with reckless mass firings, budget cuts, threats to critical data monitoring, modeling, research capabilities, and more. Now, a leaked Trump budget memo described in news reports indicates that NOAA will face further drastic cuts in staffing and budgets soon, including potentially getting rid of the entire Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) division.  

As my colleague Rachel Cleetus says, our nation’s foremost federal scientific agency for weather forecasting and climate research is under a full-scale assault—and that should alarm us all. And as my colleague Marc Alessi points out, that would affect everything from hurricane forecasting to seasonal forecasts that farmers rely on. There is grave concern that the agency could be decimated if these reckless budget cuts were enacted as part of the budget reconciliation process. That’s why more than 3,300 scientists and experts have just sent an open letter to Congress and Commerce Secretray Lutnick, urging them to stop the attacks on NOAA and ensure the agency is fully funded and staffed.  

The fight ahead: Simply put, drastic funding cuts will undermine NOAA and FEMA’s ability to achieve their missions. If enacted, these reckless proposals will put communities in greater danger, without the information they need to protect themselves or the resources to prepare for and recover from disasters, not to mention imposing mounting costs to our economy. Congress must not rubber stamp these costly, harmful actions through the budget reconciliation process.  

Three Things You Can Do Right Now 

1. You may have seen a recent Action Alert providing tools and information about how to contact Members of Congress regarding budget reconciliation. You can also take a minute to send a message to your members of Congress here and urge them to stand up for science and preserve much needed investments during the budget reconciliation process. Congress needs to hear from concerned citizens like you, so they know these issues are a priority for their constituents. 

2. Some members of Congress are also hosting town halls during this crucial time. UCS recently hosted a webinar training with information on how to ask the tough but necessary questions at town halls. Check out our town hall toolkit here which contains all the information you need to know to find and prepare for a town hall where you can ask your member of Congress a question to get them on the record on issues you care about. You can make a real difference in standing up for science today.  

3. Finally, please be on the lookout for further information from UCS regarding the next milestones in the budget reconciliation process and steps you can take to protect the critical funding and programs that may be at risk.  

Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted to eliminate California’s electric vehicle policy, which had been adopted by 11 other states.

The first 100 days of the Trump administration have put many of us who track and care about the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a tailspin. It seems like every day there’s been yet another attack on the agency, established almost fifty years ago to help communities prepare for and withstand catastrophic disasters. So, fasten your seatbelts and get ready for a rocky ride. Here’s a rundown of some of the Trump administration’s worst attacks on FEMA.

1: Gutting FEMA’s staff

On February 21, 2025, as part of the Trump administration’s mass federal agency layoffs, 200 FEMA staff were fired. Since then, an estimated 20% of FEMA staff (roughly 1,000) are expected to take voluntary buyouts. All of which comes on top of a staffing gap that FEMA and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) agreed was at 35% in 2022 and the Congressional Research Service suggested is likely much higher.

I had a chance to speak with Michael A. Coen, Jr., who was the  Chief of Staff to former FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, regarding his concerns about the current FEMA staffing levels. He served at FEMA for 15 years and supported staff out on field operations for thousands of disasters across every state, territory and multiple tribes. Here’s what he said:

With the reduction of over 2,000 FEMA employees since January 20th, I am worried about the capacity for FEMA to support the increasing number of disasters and increased intensity of disasters that will affect people across the country. Much is expected of FEMA when Americans are experiencing the loss of their home or community following an earthquake, fire, or flood. With continued ongoing response and recovery operations supporting the California wildfires, Kentucky flooding, 2024 disasters, and events from years past including the Maui fires, FEMA is stretched.

The departures from firings, retirements, or resignations have diminished morale and increased mistrust in agency leadership. FEMA employees are proud of their mission, but the mission has been under attack by the spread of misinformation and the lack of transparency from the current administration.

2: Rescinding cost-effective, popular preparedness grant funding

On April 4, the Trump administration ended one of FEMA’s most effective and popular grant programs, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, that President Trump originally signed into law in 2018. The cancellation of BRIC leaves communities less prepared even as disasters are mounting and as the Atlantic hurricane season (which starts June 1) approaches. Colorado State University is predicting nine hurricanes, including four that might advance to major hurricanes. Communities need more resources and funding to get prepared before such storms, not fewer. 

The cancellation of these grants will disrupt projects already underway or planned by emergency managers and local and Tribal governments. For 2025, this puts $3.3 billion into jeopardy for projects across the US that would help mitigate heat, wildfires, flood and other extreme weather and natural hazards, according to Urban Institute. BRIC has had bipartisan support because members of Congress understood that investing in reducing risk and preventing future damages is a wise use of taxpayer dollars. On average, every $1 invested in federal mitigation grants saves $6 in avoided losses (in addition to saving lives and reducing disruption) and FEMA saves approximately $700 million annually (in 2018 dollars) by investing in these types of mitigation projects.  

Many other FEMA funds have also been illegally frozen, causing states to sue the administration over executive overreach. On February 11, a FEMA official ordered a freeze on federal grant programs and in March FEMA blocked $10 billion in disaster aid on the pretext of immigration concerns. The result is chaos with states and jurisdictions scrambling to defend the funds they were promised.

3: Threatening to reduce disaster aid

This is a big one given the different and numerous ways President Trump has worked to threaten, deny, withhold, and otherwise disrupt disaster assistance. The only good news is that for President Trump to do real damage, at least legally, he will need to conduct rulemaking and work with Congress, and this will take time. However, in the interim states and communities are worried. So, what has he done to date?

On March 19, the president signed an executive order (EO) titled “Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness.” I wrote about the significance of this EO and how the first section of policy speaks to what Trump has been threatening all along: to shift more responsibility for disaster resilience, preparedness and response onto the shoulders of state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. This is concerning because when it comes to handling catastrophic disasters, and why FEMA exists, states—even larger states such as California—don’t have the same resources as the federal government. If Trump gets his way, disaster response and recovery will be more chaotic and ineffective, endangering more lives, especially those of the elderly, youth, those who have disabilities, and others with fewer resources to prepare or evacuate.

On April 12, FEMA head Cameron Hamilton sent a six-page draft memo to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) entitled “Actions to Rebalance FEMA’s Roles in Disasters” that only came to light weeks later through CNN news and subsequently on LinkedIn (yet another FEMA memo that has not been officially posted to the FEMA website—another red flag). In addition to the lack of transparency, there are two other jarring aspects of the memo. First, it details short-term federal actions FEMA would like to accomplish prior to the Atlantic hurricane season start on June 1, which gives emergency managers little notice to make contingency plans. Second, its intent is to implement significant agency changes over the near and long-term without first going through a federal request for information or a pre-rulemaking to get thoughtful input from stakeholders. Admittedly, not everything listed under the short-term actions is all bad. We’ve long advocated for making the right reforms to FEMA—but these actions which could determine the fates of communities in their most vulnerable hours ought to go through a public comment process. Other federal actions listed, however, are deeply concerning, including but not limited to:

• Increasing the public assistance (PA) threshold for major disaster declarations by four times the current amount. Typically, FEMA provides stakeholders with a significant amount of time for public input when it comes to major changes such as these. For example, a long and thoughtful federal pre-rulemaking process was started under the Obama administration and continued under the first Trump administration on how to increase the PA threshold while also giving credit for risk reduction—the so-called “PA disaster deductible.” A four-fold threshold increase for state, local, tribal and territorial governments (especially in this economy) would mean that President Trump will deny many more disasters, leaving state, local, Tribal and territorial governments big, small, hurricane-prone, or wildfire-prone alike at the mercy of their own insufficient resources when a disaster strikes. Again, such a substantial change ought to go through the federal rulemaking process.

• Halting the automatic approval of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Local hazard mitigation planners rely on the HMGP for supporting their planning efforts to help them develop their mitigation plans, so this could severely hamper local hazard mitigation planning. However, HMGP also supports risk reduction measures pre-disaster. So, the practical loss of HMGP along with BRIC means the few resources to help communities prior to extreme events have been thrown out, pulling the resources jurisdictions have counted on, out from under their feet.

4: Establishing a political “Review Council“

On January 24, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing a FEMA Review Council to provide the president recommendations on how to “improve FEMA” and “give states more of a role in disaster response.” The Council was also charged with requesting information from a range of stakeholders. This was posted on the federal register and the deadline for comments is May 15. You can submit comments and let the Council know that while not perfect, FEMA is essential to helping communities become more prepared before a disaster and recover after catastrophic events.

Three months later, on April 28, the public only just learned of the eleven members appointed to the Review Council, much behind the deadline President Trump set for the Council’s first public meeting.

This is just the start of an uphill battle to ensure our voices are heard above the administration’s mis-and disinformation, politicizing disaster assistance, and calls for dismantling and canceling FEMA altogether. Briefly, the 11 new members, in addition to the chairs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, largely represent the Gulf states including Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

The Council members also include:

• Governors of Texas and Virginia and the former Governor of Mississippi
• The chair of the Republican National Committee
• Two emergency managers and a two-time acting FEMA administrator
• Tampa city mayor and the Miami-Dade County Sherriff
• A representative from the private sector (Chubb Insurance)
• A former Chief of Staff for the former governor of Louisiana

We must stay vigilant as the Council members will likely be pressured to have a narrow focus and reduce the agency’s mission in alignment with the goals of DHS Secretary Noem and President Trump to dismantle FEMA.

5: Failing to nominate a FEMA Administrator and instilling a culture of fear

It’s not hard to make the case that a president ought to have a FEMA administrator nominated soon into the start of the new administration, and at least within the first 100 days. Moreover, it is just a wise thing to have the nation’s FEMA administrator nominated and in place prior to the start of the Atlantic hurricane season on June 1. During President Trump’s first term, he nominated former administrator Brock Long on April 28, 2017, but he wasn’t confirmed by Congress until June 20. In this term, on January 22 President Trump appointed the inexperienced former Navy Seal Cameron Hamilton as the top official to lead FEMA, with the title “Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator,” who still remains in the position today.  

The president has yet to even nominate a FEMA administrator, among rumors that he may select Florida emergency manager Kevin Guthrie. Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to ensure future administrators have demonstrated emergency management and homeland security knowledge and background, and a minimum of five years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector. In fact, members of Congress requested the Government Accountability Office to determine whether Cameron Hamilton legally meets these requirements. Maybe the next step Congress should take is to set a minimum period by which a President nominates a FEMA administrator.

In alarming news from CNN on April 12, Cameron Hamilton and 50 FEMA staff were given lie detector tests for allegedly leaking “national security information” after taking part in a meeting with top DHS officials. While Cameron Hamilton was cleared, some officials “failed” the polygraph test and were escorted out of the building, instilling a culture of fear at FEMA. This culture of fear is a double whammy on an agency that was already understaffed and overstretched.

6: Disbanding critical advisory councils

During the first week of the Trump administration, officials disbanded FEMA advisory councils based on a Department of Homeland Security January 20th memo.. Advisory councils are critical to assisting agencies with collecting unbiased, science-based analysis and recommendations on policies and programs. President Trump has terminated the following advisory councils—each of which were established by acts of Congress—representing a continued overreach by the executive branch:

• FEMA’s National Advisory Committee (NAC) was established by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to help address needs and gaps in disaster assistance and planning, among others. The current administration has taken the previous NAC reports down, and they are available by email request only. However, you can find the 40-member NAC 2024 report here—their largest portfolio and largest collaboration of work. I hope the FEMA review council will read this NAC report and its 15 recommendations, as well as the previous NAC reports.
• The Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) was established by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 to help improve and review FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), to recommend updates to standards, guidance, and technology, and to incorporate climate change science. In its very significant and latest 2023 report on future conditions, the TMAC had six major recommendations, including to add a second flood hazard layer to help communities plan for climate change related impacts into the future.
• The National Dam Safety Review Board was established by the 1996 National Dam Safety Program Act included in the Water Resources Development Act that year, and helps to ensure federal standards are updated and that states are in federal compliance with these standards. Dam failures can be deadly and are critical given the number of dams across the US. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials analysis of state programs found that from January 2005 through June 2013 there were 173 dam failures and 587 episodes that would have become failures if not for state intervention.

What’s next?

It’s hard to cover all of President Trump’s attacks on FEMA in one post. Moving forward, we can expect more of the same by the Trump administration: continued attacks, lack of transparency, mistrust within FEMA, mis- and disinformation—and  perhaps worse, I suspect. In the interim, the FEMA Review Council will begin to compile recommendations and process their report to the President. More will be revealed in the coming weeks and months on disaster assistance as FEMA begins to implement the April 12 memo, and as we get closer to the start of Atlantic hurricane season.

FEMA staff will continue to be worried about the readiness of the agency to respond when disasters hit, and will be over stretched when they do. State, local, Tribal and territorial governments will try to keep up with the chaotic changes under FEMA and must brace themselves for the reality that FEMA may not be there for them when disasters strike as we enter Danger Season.

During forthcoming budget negotiations, it’s crucial that Congress provide robust funding for FEMA to fulfill its mission. Giving in to the Trump administration’s proposals to make drastic cuts in FEMA’s budget and staffing will just risk leaving communities in peril when disasters strike, and increase hardship as they struggle to recover after the worst happens.

We must continue to sunlight the lack of transparency, point out mis- and disinformation, and advocate for science-based and publicly informed decision making and investments. Congress must ensure any changes moving forward happen through the proper channels, not by sidelining science and democracy.

I support the Climate Paradox report from the Tony Blair Institute, but his foreword risks compromising what must be achieved

• David King was chief scientific adviser to the UK government under Tony Blair, and is founder and chair of the global Climate Crisis Advisory Group

I have always been proud of the progress the UK made between 2003 and 2007 in formulating a credible response to the climate change. Under Tony Blair’s leadership, the UK placed climate at the heart of global diplomacy. At the time, our understanding was based largely on scientific projections and models. Today, the crisis is in full view – faster and more devastating than many imagined. The world is now experiencing the daily impacts of climate breakdown, and our responses must reflect this escalating emergency. We need measured, strategic, sustained and, above all, urgent interventions to ensure a manageable future for humanity.

That is why I support much of the thrust of The Climate Paradox report from the Tony Blair Institute. It rightly recognised that the era of endless summits and slogans must give way to one of delivery and impact. But the comments I gave were prior to seeing the foreword, and while there has been some clear misinterpretation from elements of the media, I do believe it has removed the balance of the report in ways that risk undermining what still can – and must – be achieved.

Continue reading...

Exclusive: Britain is key financial hub for destructive fossil fuel mega-projects, according to research

Banks in the City of London have poured more than $100bn (£75bn) into companies developing “carbon bombs” – huge oil, gas and coal projects that would drive the climate past internationally agreed temperature limits with catastrophic global consequences – according to a study.

Nine London-based banks, including HSBC, NatWest, Barclays and Lloyds are involved in financing companies responsible for at least 117 carbon bomb projects in 28 countries between 2016 – the year after the landmark Paris agreement was signed – and 2023, according to the study.

Continue reading...

Blitzkrieg has hit protections in place for land, oceans, forests and wildlife, and will worsen the climate crisis

• ‘A ruthless agenda’: charting 100 days of Trump’s onslaught on the environment

Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented assault upon the environment, instigating 145 actions to undo rules protecting clean air, water and a livable climate in this administration’s first 100 days – more rollbacks than were completed in Trump’s entire first term as US president.

Trump’s blitzkrieg has hit almost every major policy to shield Americans from toxic pollution, curb the worsening impacts of the climate crisis and protect landscapes, oceans, forests and imperiled wildlife.

Continue reading...