Protecting American Energy From State Overreach

Executive Orders

TLDR

This executive order seeks to invalidate state-level climate policies by asserting federal authority over energy regulation, framing state actions as unconstitutional overreach. It prioritizes “American energy dominance” through unrestricted fossil fuel extraction, directs the Attorney General to challenge state climate laws deemed “unconstitutional” or “preempted” within 60 days, and specifically targets policies like New York’s Climate Superfund Act, Vermont’s climate liability law, and California’s cap-and-trade system. Legal experts question the order’s constitutional arguments, noting potential conflicts with the Tenth Amendment, preemption doctrine, and legal precedents supporting states’ rights to regulate environmental issues.

This executive order seeks to invalidate state-level climate policies by asserting federal authority over energy regulation, framing state actions as unconstitutional overreach.

Summary of Key Provisions:

  1. Policy Objective: Prioritizes “American energy dominance” through unrestricted fossil fuel extraction (oil, gas, coal) and nuclear/mineral development, dismissing state climate laws as “ideologically motivated.”

  2. Targeted State Policies:

    • New York’s Climate Superfund Act (retroactive fines for emissions)
    • Vermont’s climate liability law
    • California’s cap-and-trade system and emissions caps
    • State lawsuits against energy companies (e.g., nuisance claims)

  3. Federal Enforcement:

    • Directs the Attorney General to identify and challenge state laws deemed “unconstitutional” or “preempted,” focusing on climate, ESG, and environmental justice policies.
    • Requires legal action within 60 days to block enforcement of these laws.

Many claim are misleading:

  1. “State climate laws violate the Constitution”: The order argues state policies infringe on interstate commerce and federal authority. However:

    • Tenth Amendment: States retain rights to regulate public health/environment absent conflicting federal law.
    • Preemption Doctrine: Federal law supersedes state law only if Congress explicitly claims jurisdiction (e.g., Clean Air Act). Many targeted policies (e.g., liability laws) operate in unregulated spaces.
    • Legal Precedent: Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) affirmed states’ role in addressing climate harms.

  2. “State laws unduly discriminate against out-of-state businesses”: While the Commerce Clause prohibits economic protectionism, most climate laws apply equally to in-state and out-of-state entities. For example, California’s cap-and-trade system applies to all businesses operating in the state, regardless of location.

  3. “Retroactive fines are extortion”: Liability laws like New York’s Climate Superfund Act are modeled on existing statutes (e.g., Superfund toxic waste cleanup), which courts have upheld as constitutional when tied to demonstrable harms.

  4. “Federalism is undermined”: The order ironically centralizes energy policy under federal control, contradicting conservative principles of state autonomy. States have historically led climate innovation (e.g., renewable energy standards), which federal policies later adopted.

  5. “Energy costs will rise”: Studies show renewable energy investments reduce long-term costs. For example, Texas’ wind energy boom lowered electricity prices by 30% from 2010–2020. Conversely, fossil fuel subsidies cost U.S. taxpayers $20 billion annually.

Potential Legal and Practical Conflicts:

  • Supremacy Clause Challenges: Courts may reject preemption arguments unless federal law explicitly conflicts (e.g., Pennsylvania v. Trump, 2019, blocked federal override of state methane regulations).
  • First Amendment Issues: Labeling climate advocacy as “ideologically motivated” could face scrutiny under free speech protections.
  • Global Repercussions: Undermining U.S. climate commitments (e.g., Paris Agreement) risks international trade penalties and diplomatic isolation.

This order reflects a policy stance prioritizing short-term energy extraction over climate mitigation, despite legal and scientific consensus on the urgency of reducing emissions.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.

Purpose.

My Administration is committed to unleashing American energy, especially through the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources — particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. An affordable and reliable domestic energy supply is essential to the national and economic security of the UnitedStates, as well as our foreign policy. Simply put, Americans are better off when the United States is energy dominant.

American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities. For example, when States target or discriminate against out-of-State energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers, and the equality of each State enshrined by the Constitution is undermined. Similarly, when States subject energy producers to arbitrary or excessive fines through retroactive penalties or seek to control energy development, siting, or production activities on Federal land, American energy suffers.
Many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated “climate change” or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security. New York, for example, enacted a “climate change” extortion law that seeks to retroactively impose billions in fines (erroneously labelled “compensatory payments”) on traditional energy producers for their purported past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions not only in New York but also anywhere in the United States and the world. Vermont similarly extorts energy producers for alleged past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the United States or the globe.

Other States have taken different approaches in an effort to dictate national energy policy. 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. Some States delay review of permit applications to produce energy, creating de facto barriers to entry in the energy market. States have also sued energy companies for supposed “climate change” harm under nuisance or other tort regimes that could result in crippling damages.
These State laws and policies weaken our national security and devastate Americans by driving up energy costs for families coast-to-coast, despite some of these families not living or voting in States with these crippling policies. These laws and policies also undermine Federalism by projecting the regulatory preferences of a few States into all States. Americans must be permitted to heat their homes, fuel their cars, and have peace of mind — free from policies that make energy more expensive and inevitably degrade quality of life.

These State laws and policies try to dictate interstate and international disputes over air, water, and natural resources; unduly discriminate against out-of-State businesses; contravene the equality of States; and retroactively impose arbitrary and excessive fines without legitimate justification.
These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand.

Sec. 2.

State Laws and Causes of Action.

(a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, shall identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable. The Attorney General shall prioritize the identification of any such State laws purporting to address “climate change” or involving “environmental, social, and governance” initiatives, “environmental justice,” carbon or “greenhouse gas” emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

(b) The Attorney General shall expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal.

© Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the President, through the Counsel to the President, regarding actions taken under subsection (b) of this section. The Attorney General shall also recommend any additional Presidential or legislative action necessary to stop the enforcement of State laws identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal or otherwise fulfill the purpose of this order.

Sec. 3.

General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

© This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 8, 2025.