Twenty-two plaintiffs between ages seven and 25 allege government is engaging in unlawful executive overreach
Thu 29 May 2025
Twenty-two young Americans have filed a new lawsuit against the Trump administration over its anti-environment executive orders. By intentionally boosting oil and gas production and stymying carbon-free energy, federal officials are violating their constitutional rights to life and liberty, alleges the lawsuit, filed on Thursday.
The federal government is engaging in unlawful executive overreach by breaching congressional mandates to protect ecosystems and public health, argue the plaintiffs, who are between the ages of seven and 25 and hail from the heavily climate-impacted states of Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, California and Florida. They also say officials’ emissions-increasing and science-suppressing orders have violated the state-created danger doctrine, a legal principle meant to prevent government actors from inflicting injury upon their citizens.
Trump solicits political payoffs from oil company executives
Among the many shocking things Trump has done, openly soliciting political payoffs from oil company executives is near the top. See Washington Post, What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign. (Article is accessible to all.)
Here is WaPo’s description of the incident:
As Donald Trump sat with some of the country’s top oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, one executive complained about how they continued to face burdensome environmental regulations despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year.
Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean:
[Trump said:] You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House.
At the dinner, [Trump] vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people [at the dinner].
Got that? Trump explicitly connected raising $1 billion from oil executives and reversing Biden’s environmental rules that are unfavorable to oil companies. While the role of dirty money in politics is pervasive, explicit “quid pro quos” are usually exchanged in secret—because they are illegal. See 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses.
As usual, Trump is skirting the law. Section 201 prohibits public officials or “persons selected to be public officials” from demanding anything of value in exchange for an official act. If Trump made the same request after he had been elected (but before he was inaugurated), it would likely be a crime. Trump is walking right up to the line of illegality—again.
But saying that Trump has not committed a crime should not be the bar for judging his brazen solicitation of a payoff, i.e., “You raise $1 billion for me so I can repeal Joe Biden’s regulations that govern oil companies.” The mere hint of such an exchange should disqualify Trump as a candidate and outrage every American who believes their government is not for sale.
Surveys from the Pew Research Center show the widening partisan divide over environmental policy. In the 1990s self-identified Republicans and Democrats weren’t that different in their environmental views: Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say that we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, more likely to say that environmental regulation hurts the economy, but the gaps were relatively modest.
Since then, however, these gaps have widened into chasms, and not in a symmetrical way: Democrats have become somewhat more supportive of environmental action, but Republicans have become much less supportive.
Most of the divergence is fairly recent, having taken place since around 2008. I can’t help pointing out that Republican belief that environmental protection hurts the economy soared precisely during the period when revolutionary technological progress in renewable energy was making emissions reductions cheaper than ever before.
Republican voters may be taking their cues from politicians and media figures. So why have conservative opinion leaders turned anti-environment?
It’s not about belief in free markets and opposition to government intervention. One of the most striking aspects of recent energy disputes is the extent to which Republicans have tried to use the power of the state to promote polluting energy sources even when the private sector prefers alternatives. The Trump administration tried, unsuccessfully, to force electric utilities to keep burning coal even when other power sources were cheaper. Currently, as The Times has reported, many Republican state treasurers are trying to punish banks and other companies seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Surveys from the Pew Research Center show the widening partisan divide over environmental policy. In the 1990s self-identified Republicans and Democrats weren’t that different in their environmental views: Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say that we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, more likely to say that environmental regulation hurts the economy, but the gaps were relatively modest.
Since then, however, these gaps have widened into chasms, and not in a symmetrical way: Democrats have become somewhat more supportive of environmental action, but Republicans have become much less supportive.
Most of the divergence is fairly recent, having taken place since around 2008. I can’t help pointing out that Republican belief that environmental protection hurts the economy soared precisely during the period when revolutionary technological progress in renewable energy was making emissions reductions cheaper than ever before.
Republican voters may be taking their cues from politicians and media figures. So why have conservative opinion leaders turned anti-environment?
It’s not about belief in free markets and opposition to government intervention. One of the most striking aspects of recent energy disputes is the extent to which Republicans have tried to use the power of the state to promote polluting energy sources even when the private sector prefers alternatives. The Trump administration tried, unsuccessfully, to force electric utilities to keep burning coal even when other power sources were cheaper. Currently, as The Times has reported, many Republican state treasurers are trying to punish banks and other companies seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
England's River Ouse makes history as first to gain legal rights
Running 84 kilometres through Yorkshire to the Humber estuary on the east coast of Northern England, the River Ouse may only be the country’s sixth longest river but it is its first – in a groundbreaking new development – to be granted its own legal rights.
In what has been billed a ‘major step forward in the UK’s environmental movement’, the River Ouse – the longest to flow entirely in one English county – joins a small but powerful international collection of rivers to have been recognised as ‘living entities’ with ‘intrinsic rights to exist.’
With legal rights now recognised by a legal authority, Ouse follows on from successful models implemented in New Zealand, Canada, and Colombia across which rivers have been granted the rights to flow, thrive, and be free from pollution.
“This is an historic moment for environmental protection in England,” said Emma Montlake, co-director of the Environmental Law Foundation, which played a vital role in gaining the River Ouse its own legal rights.
“By supporting the Rights of Rivers, Lewes District Council has set a precedent that could transform the way we safeguard our rivers. The River Ouse is an essential part of the region’s ecosystem and cultural heritage – this decision ensures a better future for the River’s health and protection.”
The role played in the process by the Environmental Law Foundation extended to assisting the local Lewes community group, Love Our Ouse to advance the River Ouse Rights’ Charter within a previously stipulated time frame, collaborating with stakeholders including Lewes District Council, Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust, and Sussex Wildlife Trust to do so.
While not yet legally-binding, the Charter provides a visionary framework that reflects both the essential needs of the river in order for it to be healthy, and local communities’ highest aspirations for it. Campaigners hope that the decision to grant the river its own legal rights will empower local people to advocate for the river and hold polluters accountable.
Born from a community initiative introduced by Love Our Ouse at the River Festival in Lewes in September 2022, the Rights of River Declaration for the River Ouse became the subject over numerous workshops across the local communities – from the river’s source to its mouth at the Humber Estuary – through which it garnered “overwhelmingly positive support.
Since its motion to Council in 2023, other River Rights initiatives have sprung up across the UK, with a national River Rights Network now established to support the cause here on home soil and across the globe.
Matthew Bird, director of Love Our Ouse, said: “This is a momentous moment for the river and goes some way towards recognising that the river is an entity in its own right and that its voice needs to be represented in decisions which affect it.
“The river faces numerous challenges including pollution, climate change, over use, and development. The Charter provides a common framework through which to address these.”
According to the river pollution tracker platform Top of the Poops – established to monitor the reported pollution events carried out on waterways across the UK – the River Ouse was subjected to sewage pollution a total of 63 times in 2023, totalling 442 hours of pollution exposure across four sites carried out by Anglian Water.
In recent months, privatised water companies in England and Wales have been heavily criticised for failing to prevent the pollution of waterways, including discharges of sewage into rivers. Last year, it was reported that sewage spills into England’s rivers and seas by waters companies more than doubled in 2023.
According to the Environment Agency, 2023 recorded 3.6 million hours of spills compared to the 1.75 million hours in 2022. Sewage spilling can – in some cases – be legal, but environmentalists say it should only happen in exceptional weather.
At the time, the Environment Agency said: “It is important to note that heavy rainfall does not affect water companies’ responsibility to manage storm overflows in line with legal requirements.”
In a damning report issued by a parliamentary committee, England’s rivers have previously been called a ‘dangerous chemical cocktail of sewage, agricultural waste, and plastic.’ This poor water quality goes on to damage natural ocean ecosystems and habitats, such as kelp beds and seagrasses, reducing both biodiversity and the ocean’s ability to store carbon.
Love Our Ouse’s Bird, said: “We hope Lewes District Council’s decision to support the Ouse Charter will encourage communities throughout the UK to pursue charters for their local rivers.”
Europe takes bold step to restore nature and biodiversity | Positive News - The Best Good News Today
Europe is making history with a bold commitment to restoring nature and reversing biodiversity loss.
The newly approved Nature Restoration Law mandates that EU nations revive at least 20% of their land and marine ecosystems by 2030, marking a crucial step toward a greener future.
With 81% of natural habitats currently in poor condition, this law brings hope for environmental recovery, balancing conservation with economic concerns.
Despite opposition from some agricultural and political groups, the law passed after intense debate, proving that science and sustainability can triumph over misinformation.
Environmental organizations are celebrating this milestone, emphasizing its role in combating climate change and ensuring long-term ecological health.
This initiative isn’t just about Europe—it’s part of a global movement toward sustainability, with nations like Finland and Scotland also leading innovative environmental and social programs.
Climate and environmental activists are growing impatient with a Democratic-led House that they view as not doing enough to enact their agenda.
Excerpt from this New York Times story:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a triumphant message on Friday as the House moved on legislation, long sought by environmentalists, to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate toxic chemicals that can contaminate drinking water.
“The Trump Administration’s E.P.A. is breaking its own promises every day that it delays and puts polluters ahead of the American people,” she said before 24 Republicans joined all but one Democrat to pass the act, 247 to 159, on the chemicals, known as PFAS. “In stark contrast, the House is taking action.”
But the measure, the PFAS Action Act, already has a veto threat looming over it, and its prospects in the Senate, like those of other House bills addressing environmental regulation and climate change, are slim to none. In the meantime, critical legislation passed in the Christmas rush last month was signed into law, with environmental provisions and climate change measures watered down or omitted altogether.
“If you really want to understand what Congress’s true priorities are, you look at must-pass legislation — you look at what they give up and what they double down on,” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York and one of her caucus’s most outspoken climate advocates. “And if you look at must-pass legislation, this Congress is engaged in climate denial.”
On the surface, House Democrats have diligently stressed their commitment to the environment. They have held more than 120 hearings, championed legislation meant to curb planet-warming emissions and created a select committee on climate change. On Thursday, Ms. Pelosi, in teasing the release of a long-awaited infrastructure package, said it would be the House’s “most current initiative on the climate.”
But their record of legislative victories is thin. Essential legislation — a crucial military policy bill, two voluminous funding packages and an overhaul of the North American Free Trade Agreement — has passed the House, but without far-reaching environmental provisions. Even a relatively minor provision, the extension of a tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles, was dropped from a package of tax-credit extensions at the insistence of the White House before Congress approved them last year.
“We didn’t have leadership in the Democratic Party that was ultimately willing to call the president’s bluff and say, ‘You really want to shut down the government over renewable energy? Take your best shot,’” said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club.
It's time for Albertans to wake up! Alberta's Energy Regulator estimates our oilpatch has accumulated $260 billion in unfunded cleanup liabilities. If the Supreme Court of Canada affirms the Alberta courts' sweeping interpretation of federal bankruptcy law in the Redwater Energy case, every polluter in Canada will be welcome to walk away in bankruptcy from the mess they have
“ ... The logical conclusion of that decision by Justice Jack MacPherson of the Court of Queen's Bench would have been that a trustee in bankruptcy could ignore all provincial statutes if they could save money that could repay the debts of lenders. Ms. Saxe wrote this could include "dumping hazardous waste in a school yard if that were cheaper than using licensed disposal sites as required by provincial legislation." Fortunately, she noted, Justice MacPherson's decision was reversed on appeal. ... “
