The following article is part of a series of reflections on the 2025 New Directions in Environmental Law Conference, also known as NDEL. On February 15, 2025, scholars, practitioners, students, and policymakers convened at Yale Law School to analyze changes and emerging issues in environmental law. The series covers the keynote speaker and each panel from NDEL and is written by Student Reporter attendees. Student Reporters were guided by Alysia LeComte and Julianne Frey, NDEL Committee Members and 2L students at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.

Student reporters Nicholas Mammel and Luke Warkall prepared this edited summary of the panel entitled, “New Directions from a Hostile White House: What Does a Second Trump Administration Mean for Environmental Law?” featuring panelists Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Earthjustice Managing Attorney Susan J. Kraham, Environmental Protection Agency Deputy General Counsel Marianne Engelman Lado, and Yale Law School Director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy Daniel Etsy.

I. Introduction

This panel discussion explored several environmental law experts’ views on how environmental justice and policies have already changed and how they are likely to continue changing during the second Trump Administration. The panelists’ conversation addressed the persistent threat to environmental justice initiatives, the destruction of regulatory agencies and their frameworks, and strategies that environmental advocates can use to combat the challenges that environmental law now faces. This report summarizes the panelists’ conversation on the consequences of the second Trump Administration on environmental law, environmental justice, federalism, and strategies for environmental defenders to create and maintain a healthy environment for all.

II. Environmental Justice and the Destruction of Regulatory Agencies

Environmental justice (EJ) initiatives advance the idea that everyone is entitled to a clean, healthy environment and a voice in how policies affect the environment. The federal government recognized the need for environmental justice in 1994 when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionate environmental and health impacts on marginalized communities.

The Biden Administration prioritized EJ by creating the Office of Environmental Justice. The role of this office was to identify communities that were disproportionately exposed to pollutants and direct resources to those disparately affected populations.  The Biden Administration made it exceptionally clear that race was not a determining factor in conferring benefits. Even though EJ initiatives were not based on race, the Trump Administration rescinded Executive Order 12898 when he issued Executive Order 14173 in the name of ending diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, effectively eliminating the federal government’s thirty-year commitment to EJ.

The Trump Administration is particularly dangerous because of the support the administration receives from the majority conservative Supreme Court. Even before Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was changing the environmental legal landscape in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, Ohio v. EPA, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The decisions in these cases withdrew the power from regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and undermined the voices of experts in specialized areas. The Trump Administration has also already fired numerous federal employees, with 388 EPA employees losing their jobs on February 14, 2025, the day before this panel took place. Defunding agencies like the EPA will result in diminished protection of the environment from various man-made threats. The retreat from EJ, mass firings of federal employees, and new Supreme Court precedents may lead some environmental advocates to despair.

However, panelists were hopeful about the future of environmental law in the United States, pointing to the grassroots EJ efforts and local-level organizations that remain active even as federal support dwindles. These organizations were active long before EJ had any federal support. Using the example of local governments and community-based organizations, one panelist suggested that while the Trump Administration will not support EJ initiatives, local initiatives could pick up the slack to protect the most vulnerable populations. By bolstering support for local EJ initiatives and organizations, community members can fill the massive EJ gap that the Trump Administration created. Panelists emphasized involvement with local organizations, communication among advocates, and the importance of constituents voicing concerns to their representatives.

III. The Role of Federal Agencies and Executive Power

Panelists raised concerns over the Trump Administration’s expansive use of executive power and warned that this harmful practice could accelerate the erosion of agencies like the EPA through mass firings and diminished deference to environmental experts. The loss of federal employees can result in inefficient enforcement of the statutes that make the environment healthy and safe for the American people, not to mention the loss of decades worth of expertise. Once the agencies are purged of the experts they rely on, the vulnerability of these agencies will become apparent in areas such as environmental protection. For example, the opening of previously protected lands for development. This change is illustrated through the Executive Order titled “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” which sets the stage for expanded logging and weakened protections for federal forests.

Regardless, in the face of this hostile administration, federal agencies remain resilient. Agencies were built on decades of regulatory knowledge and practical expertise, and they are meant to withstand such administrations via the power of Congress. Congress granted agencies their enabling statutes, not the executive branch. Historically, agencies like the EPA have adapted and persisted through hostile political environments.

IV. State Versus Federal Authority in Environmental Law

Another key topic the panelists discussed was federalism and the role of States in environmental governance. A particular point of emphasis was the idea that the individual States could become more proactive in enforcing environmental protections. One panelist pointed to California’s leadership in regulating vehicle emissions as an example of a state taking action to protect the environment. States have the right and the obligation to exercise their sovereignty as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and have the power to exercise that authority within environmental matters. From this perspective, States could step up to protect their own environments, especially in cases where the federal government is unwilling or unable to do so. The trend toward states exercising their sovereignty in environmental law may be beneficial in pushing back against federal rollbacks. As sovereigns, States can take actions that private parties cannot, and States can exercise authority on EJ concerns in lieu of federal regulation.

Conversely, other panelists advocated for caution with this approach, suggesting that relying too heavily on state-level policies could lead to inconsistencies across the country. This potential inequality would likely endanger vulnerable communities in States with less protective policies. As these panelists noted, a patchwork approach could undermine nationwide progress and result in uneven protections, with some states opting to weaken or abandon environmental safeguards altogether.

V. Litigation and Advocacy in Response to Regulatory Rollbacks

The panelists acknowledged different litigation strategies that environmental advocates could utilize to challenge Trump’s changes. Several panelists touched on the Trump Administration’s “flood the zone” approach, which takes rapid, unilateral, unlawful actions through executive orders, memoranda, and agency policy changes to overwhelm regulatory systems and exhaust opposition. When reacting to this strategy, advocates should not be picky when choosing which actions to oppose; they should oppose harmful actions any time they can. By challenging environmental rollbacks and holding government agencies accountable, environmental lawyers and activists could continue to defend key policies and regulations. Courts could slow down or block more extreme changes, particularly with increasing public and institutional support for environmental protection and on account of the consequences that many constitutional challenges may carry with them.

Other panelists prioritized a more strategic and focused approach to litigation, suggesting that environmental advocates should play to their strengths and focus on areas where they can have the greatest impact. They recommended that advocates use resources wisely and should not neglect long-term strategies. For example, challenging actions with the greatest effect on vulnerable populations and seeking accountability from industries that have historically contributed the most to environmental harm. Contrary to the “flood the zone” strategy, these actions would be coordinated and well-resourced legal efforts that align with long-term advocacy goals.

Some panelists also stressed that litigation alone is not enough. Combatting misinformation and harmful policy changes requires a multi-faceted approach, including public education campaigns, grassroots mobilization, and direct action to prevent the erosion of environmental protections. Advocates should pursue conversations with people that they disagree with, get past the “noise,” and find ways to work together. While litigation remains a vital tool, these panelists noted that it is important to engage in other forms of advocacy to sustain long-term progress. In response to a lack of clarity, panelists highlighted that until a majority of the pending litigation plays out, the field may remain undefined.

VI. NGOs’ Role in Environmental Protection

A central theme of the panel was the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in protecting environmental laws. NGOs should focus on what they do best—defending legal protections, advocating for public policy, and organizing communities—but also support smaller, community-based organizations that may be more vulnerable to legal threats. Panelists noted that NGOs have a crucial role in creating an “ecosystem of justice” by working together to safeguard environmental laws and protections.

The panelists were concerned about the rising threat of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits), where large corporations or government entities use legal intimidation tactics to silence environmental defenders. This issue has become increasingly prominent as companies and government agencies attempt to discredit and weaken environmental organizations through lawsuits, subpoenas, and other forms of harassment. This trend could damage NGOs’ abilities to function and advocate for change because these smaller organizations often lack the resources to defend themselves against SLAPP suits. The panelists encouraged the larger environmental community to support smaller NGOs so they can continue their work without fear of retribution. They further suggested that legal defenders create protective networks and mechanisms to keep NGOs afloat, such as the Environmental Defenders Collaborative. This need for a collective, community-centered response not only includes providing legal assistance but also offering emotional and organizational support to those working on the front lines. Organizations must collaborate to shield each other from external pressures and continue to fight for EJ despite the risks involved.

VII. Conclusion: Moving Forward

The panelists agreed that the Trump Administration’s destruction of environmental protections is significant and must be addressed through a combination of legal action, public advocacy, and community-based strategies. The panelists unanimously emphasized the importance of remaining vigilant and proactive to defend the environment. While views on the best strategy going forward diverged, the role of States as authorities, grassroots activists as supporters, and legal advocates as the driving force behind environmental justice initiatives were unanimously recognized as vital in the coming years. The diverse views expressed provide a roadmap for how environmental advocates can adapt to the evolving political landscape, ensuring that the fight for a sustainable and just environment continues despite the challenges ahead.