Trump 2.0, Day One: Considerations for Cities and Community Partners – Climate Law Blog

As expected, a newly sworn-in President Donald Trump spent the afternoon following his inauguration signing executive orders (EOs), many of them intended to unwind climate and environmental initiatives enacted by former President Joe Biden. In the EOs, President Trump orders federal agencies and personnel to take certain actions – or to report back on actions that could be taken in the future – that would stifle federal clean energy programs, steer funding away from disadvantaged populations and communities, or both. The EOs are an exercise in obfuscation, and major aspects of them are infeasible, unlawful, or require Congressional action. Still, they set in motion a range of near- and medium-term actions that the Trump administration will take to undercut the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), eliminate the Justice40 commitment, and roll back other federal climate and clean energy programs.

This blog post highlights aspects of the EOs of particular interest to cities, other local governments, and community based organizations (CBOs). It does not seek to discuss every aspect of Trump’s EOs, nor to answer every question about the lawfulness of various provisions, nor to set out the exact mechanics for what’s to come. Rather, it addresses issues and considerations of particular interest to those working at the local level.

Pause on Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act Disbursements

In an effort to “[t]erminat[e] the Green New Deal,” Trump’s EO entitled “Unleashing American Energy” directs federal agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the [IRA] or the [Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA)], including but not limited to funds for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program.” Further, the order specifies that these funds are not to be disbursed without approval from the directors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Economic Council. By Wednesday, OMB had issued guidance clarifying that the pause on disbursements was not meant to apply to programs unrelated to “terminating the Green New Deal” (for example, funding for road projects could continue).

It remains unclear what the EO means by “disbursement.” With respect to the two named grant programs, we can assume that future tranches of funding will not be awarded. It also seems likely that other funds that have not been obligated to a grantee by contract will be held up for at least the initial 90 day review period, if not indefinitely. For obligated funds – those which are the subject of a signed grant agreement – there is little context to go on within the EO’s text. Federal agencies may not lawfully withhold obligated disbursements unless permitted to do so by the applicable contract – for example, if the awardee has breached the contract. However, given the broad language of the EO, it seems probable that at least some agencies will attempt to do so anyway. If this occurs, litigation will likely ensue.

Agency personnel are presumably scrambling to better understand their parameters, and it’s possible that different agencies, and even personnel within agencies, will interpret this aspect of the EO differently. The broader lawfulness of all of this is questionable at best, and in the coming months, we’re likely to hear more about a 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act, which disallows the executive branch from withholding funds appropriated by Congress. Trump allies, including presumptive OMB Director Russell Vought, have asserted that the Act is unconstitutional, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the Trump administration violated the Act during his first term. With all of this uncertainty, local government and CBO grantees should for now be sure to comply with the terms of their grant agreements to avoid legal footfaults that could allow an agency to hold back future tranches of funding. Whether agencies make payments when required by their contracts is a space to watch.

Climate and clean energy tax credits, along with the elective pay mechanism, were largely spared by Monday’s spate of EOs, likely because they cannot be done away with without Congressional action. Further, the pause on IRA and IIJA disbursements does not by its text encompass the elective payment of tax credits, because those funds are not “appropriated through” either law. Direct spending programs, which are subject to appropriations, are distinct from tax expenditures. In any event, the Internal Revenue Code, where tax credits and the elective pay mechanism are codified, cannot be amended via executive order. Still, broader uncertainty around tax credits remains. For the time being, local governments and others seeking to use elective pay in the near term should make their filings on time and be sure to comply with all legal and regulatory requirements. Doing so will best position tax filers to receive the benefits they are entitled to.

Terminating Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Programs & Policies (including Justice40)

Some of the more far-reaching and immediate implications of the Trump EOs have to do with environmental justice (EJ) and disadvantaged communities. While some federal rules, appropriations, and programs are designed to address EJ considerations and respond to the needs of disadvantaged communities, broader federal policy with respect to EJ is set out almost entirely in EOs from earlier presidents. In rescinding many of those EOs, President Trump is within his authority to dismantle the executive branch’s EJ work.

Among the EOs rescinded on Monday was President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (EO No. 14008). EO No. 14008 did three major things to advance EJ, all of which were undone by President Trump’s EO: (1) it introduced the concept of “disadvantaged communities” to federal climate policymaking; (2) it pledged 40 percent of the benefits of certain climate and clean energy spending to benefit disadvantaged communities (known as the Justice40 commitment); and (3) it directed the White House Council on Environmental Quality to develop the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) to identify areas qualifying as disadvantaged communities. CEJST has already been taken offline (CEJST data has been backed up here, data preservation efforts are underway, and more user-friendly online tools should be made available by nongovernmental entities in the coming months).

With the rescission of EO No. 14008, and of Justice40 in particular, we can expect that federal agencies will not make discretionary decisions that prioritize or direct funding in any specified percentage to disadvantaged communities. However, aspects of Justice40 and the Biden administration’s focus on disadvantaged communities are embedded in federal laws and programs. The term “disadvantaged communities” is used in both the IRA and the IIJA, though it lacks a consistent definition. The CEJST had provided a common definition based on rigorous screening criteria.

Several provisions of the IRA make statutory commitments that 40 percent or more of the funding appropriated under them will be deployed to benefit disadvantaged communities. For example, Section 60103 of the IRA, which establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), specifies that $15 billion of the $27 billion allocated to the GGRF should be used “for the purposes of providing financial assistance and technical assistance in low-income and disadvantaged communities.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Solar for All and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator programs to direct GGRF funding as required by statute. Programs that have already been implemented according to Justice40 principles would not be directly affected by the revocation of the Justice40 commitment. The GGRF awardees have largely developed their programs; it would be infeasible to change them through an EO. For the small number of programs for which funding has not been fully drawn down, implementation could get tricky. The Low Emissions Electricity Program, for instance, allocates $17 million for “education, technical assistance, and partnerships within low-income and disadvantaged communities.” “Disadvantaged communities” is not defined. Without the CEJST or another federal definition for the phrase, it is not clear how the EPA would choose to administer this program (if it chooses to do so at all, given the pause on IRA spending).

What is becoming extremely clear is that the Trump administration is seeking to stamp out any federal programs or policies relating to environmental justice and to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). In addition to EO No. 14008, Trump’s “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” revoked Biden EOs “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” and “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.” Among other things, these orders directed agencies to assess the cumulative impacts of their activities on EJ communities, embedded EJ and DEI principles across federal agencies, and required research, data collection, and strategic planning to address needs and gaps. On Tuesday, Trump issued another EO rescinding President Clinton’s 1994 EO No. 12898, on which much of federal EJ policy is based. Furthermore, the Trump EO “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” mandates the termination of “all DEI, DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion & antiracism], and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions,” and on January 21, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management released a memo requiring employees in DEIA positions to be placed on administrative leave by the following day. The memo further requested that agency employees disclose “if they know of any efforts to disguise these programs, by using coded or imprecise language,” portending a near complete eradication of racial equity and EJ work within the federal government.

“Eliminating” the Imagined “EV Mandate”

The Unleashing American Energy EO also seeks to “eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’” through a range of measures, many to be determined. To be clear, there is no federal “EV mandate.” The language is likely meant to refer to EPA’s vehicle greenhouse gas  emissions standards and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, both of which to varying extents push automakers to include more EVs in their fleets. The EO also refers to waivers granted to California under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act for its own Advanced Clean Cars II rule that aims to phase out new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. A regulatory shift away from EVs will take time. The EPA and NHTSA rulemakings are completed, as is California’s Section 209 waiver for Advanced Clean Cars II. The rescission of any final rule or proposal of replacement rules would be required to go through the lengthy federal rulemaking process, which requires interagency review and the opportunity for public comment. Further, California’s underlying right to seek, and its wide latitude to receive, a waiver for its vehicle pollution standards derives from statute (and is not subject to revision under rulemakings). All of this has been and will continue to be the source of significant litigation.

The executive order also directs the EPA administrator to submit recommendations to OMB “on the legality and continuing applicability of” the Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding was EPA’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and… endanger public welfare” and that new motor vehicles contribute to this pollution. Pursuant to the text of Clean Air Act Section 202, along with a 2007 case entitled Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA is statutorily required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles once a determination such as the Endangerment Finding is reached. The Endangerment Finding therefore underpins EPA’s progressively more stringent vehicle emission standards. While President Trump reportedly considered trying to repeal the Endangerment Finding during his first term, his administration ultimately did not do so.

The phrase “EV mandate” also jibes with a political antagonism to some electric vehicle tax credits. The EO proposes “considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies.” Presumably, this refers to the EV tax credits that have been the subject of significant recent scrutiny. EV tax credits – including the Section 30D credit for household EV purchases – remain subject to Congressional negotiations in any future tax bill.

Easier Siting of Fossil Fuel Projects

Another Executive Order, entitled “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” seeks to circumvent much of the normal permitting and regulatory process associated with approving energy projects. The EO defines “energy” to mean “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals,” but not wind, solar, or other renewables.

The Energy Emergency EO sits alongside a provision in the Unleashing American Energy EO that seeks to replace Biden administration regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which governs environmental review of projects requiring federal approvals. Without belaboring the significant questions around Trump’s authority to grant emergency powers or what new NEPA regulations might look like, suffice to say that this opens the door to more fossil fuel projects being developed in communities across the country. The Energy Emergency EO calls out the northeast and west coast in particular as places “where dangerous State and local policies jeopardize our Nation’s core national defense and security needs, and devastate the prosperity of not only local residents but the entire United States population,” but the orders are not geographically limited. Energy projects are disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color, and there is no reason to think a Trump siting strategy would be more equitable.

 Favoring Fossil-Fueled Appliances

The Unleashing American Energy EO promises “to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads,” before directing agency heads, including the Department of Energy (DOE), to review and identify regulations that “impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources – with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources.” Essentially, President Trump is asking DOE to roll back existing appliance efficiency standards set under the Energy Policy & Conservation Act. Putting aside the lawfulness of this instruction (EPCA contains an anti-backsliding provision prohibiting the replacement of standards with less stringent ones), this will mostly have implications for the kinds of appliances available for purchase, not for local governments directly. However, the provision is indicative of a broader hostility to ambitious energy efficiency standards, which may play out in the future between the federal government and state and local governments with policies promoting building or appliance electrification.

 Leaving the Paris Agreement, Again

As has been widely reported, the EO “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements” sets in motion the process for a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. The process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement takes at least one year to complete.

On the surface, this EO has to do with the United States’ positioning on the international stage. At a more basic level, however, the federal government’s failure to participate in the Paris framework means that subnational actors – cities, states, businesses, and nonprofit organizations – will shoulder the burden of meeting the country’s targets under the agreement, if those targets are met at all. The Paris Agreement framework requires participating countries to submit “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) every five years. The U.S.’s most recent NDC, submitted in December 2024, sets a 2035 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 61 to 66 percent below 2005 levels, and no new NDC is due during Trump’s term. Trump’s overall energy policy will plainly make this target more difficult to achieve, and the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will undoubtedly set back both national and global climate progress. But it is conceivable that subnational actors could stay the course sufficient for a future administration taking office in 2029 to enact policy more consistent with the December 2024 NDC.

During the first Trump administration, more than 200 local governments committed to helping achieve the U.S.’s Paris targets. Similar commitments are starting to emerge this time around: 24 state governors publicly committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement; former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies pledged support to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which the Paris Agreement was adopted; and the America Is All In coalition of more than 5,000 cities, states, tribes, businesses and institutions “double[d] down” in its support of the Paris Agreement.” All of this paves the way for audacious action by cities and communities over the next four years, alongside other subnational actors.

This post might identify as many questions as it answers. Given the uncertainty – legal and otherwise – surrounding Monday’s EOs, a clear state of play may not be visible for some time. In the meantime, cities and community groups with IRA funded projects, whether through grants or tax credits, should ensure they are complying with all regulatory or filing requirements. While the sands are sure to shift, receiving the funding an entity is entitled to under a grant agreement or the tax code will depend on careful adherence to existing law and regulation.