More than a hundred industry trade groups and chambers of commerce are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to weaken or eliminate numerous Biden administration rules on energy, air pollution, recycling, heat protection for workers, consumer protection and corporate finance, saying the rules are “”the economy to strangle the country”.
In a 21-page letter to Trump and his prospective Cabinet, the groups called for changes to dozens of “burdensome regulations that stifle investment, make us less competitive globally, limit innovation and threaten the very jobs we all work to create right here.” in America.”
Among other things, the Dec. 5 letter calls on Trump to resume exports of liquefied natural gas, support legislation to promote the use of nuclear energy, repeal new emissions standards for coal and gas-fired power plants, and relax newly proposed standards for black carbon and PFAS “for always” chemicals, pause implementation of heat standards for workers, limit the Food and Drug Administration’s food traceability requirements, and fight efforts to enforce “right-to-repair” rules that protect consumers Give electronics tools and instructions to repair their damage instead of throwing them away.
The document has raised alarm among many environmental and consumer advocates, although legal experts say such changes would likely pose many legal and procedural challenges.
“This is a wish list for uncontrolled exposure to toxic chemicals, more air pollution, dirty drinking water, contaminated food, unsafe workplaces and less consumer protection,” said David Michaels, a professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University. “If these corporate demands are met, we will see higher rates of cancer and heart disease in adults and asthma attacks in children, more outbreaks of food-borne illnesses, workers becoming sick or dying from heat, and extreme weather events causing enormous human casualties “will bring about life and property.”
Ken Alex, director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at UC Berkeley, said the letter reflects the spirit and text of Project 2025, particularly the pro-fossil fuel agenda of the 900-page document.
Signatory trade groups include powerful industry associations such as the American Chemistry Council and the American Forest and Paper Assn., as well as smaller associations such as the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance and the National Lime Assn.
“We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and the new Congress to advance pro-growth, science-based policies that support growing domestic chemical production here at home and help make America the global manufacturing superpower,” said Scott Openshaw, senior director of advocacy communications for the American Chemistry Council.
What's notable is that none of the major automotive companies are among the signatories – although there is representation from the Motorcycle Industry Council and the RV Industry Assn. and the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Assn.
“That's super interesting because they have a whole bunch of proposals to rule out restrictions on internal combustion engines and a lot of things about conduit emissions,” Alex said, suggesting that those need to come from the oil companies instead. And automakers “are, at least as far as I know, interested in transitioning to electric vehicles because they see the direction the industry is going to go.” So the automakers’ absence here is, I think, pretty significant.”
In addition, as researchers and policy experts expected shortly after the election, the groups called for the new Trump administration to keep President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act in place.
While manufacturers initially opposed the tax and price control provisions of the law, they wrote, “The energy tax incentives in the law have spurred investment in new technologies that will fuel manufacturing growth for decades… A comprehensive repeal of the credits will lead to this.” A catastrophic impact on these investments and the jobs associated with them.”
Alex said that as bold as the letter is about the depth and breadth of the deregulation “calls,” it is “warranted in many contexts to recognize that some regulations and licensing requirements are burdensome and difficult.” You have to have a certain sensitivity to that , and just because it comes from the American Chemistry Council doesn't mean some of these claims don't have merit.”
However, he said the letter really “underscores the importance and need for rigorous agency evaluation to have staff with expertise and scientific backgrounds… I fear that some of these suggestions will be viewed as high priorities without full implementation consideration.” .”
Should the new Trump administration decide to pursue some or all of the applications, success is not guaranteed.
“The new president cannot do most of this through executive action. Some of it maybe yes, but most of it is regulatory action,” said Deborah Sivas, a law professor and director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford. “In order to introduce a new rule or roll back an old rule, you still have to go through the rulemaking process. I suspect they will try to cut that down in some way.”
When EPA or another federal agency goes through a rulemaking process, officials must follow the requirements Administrative Procedure ActThis includes the lengthy process of soliciting and reviewing public comments on draft proposals.
At the same time, government lawyers will be tasked with developing arguments to justify why deregulation makes sense and defending those decisions in court, as they have done under previous Republican administrations, Sivas said.
Those in the Trump administration will face the reality that if they try to push through review processes too quickly, they could end up losing if their actions are challenged in court, Sivas said.
“The rules won’t change that quickly. It will take a while. And there will be litigation,” Sivas said.
Steve Fleischli, senior director for air and water at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed. Even as new employees are added to the EPA, they must continue to comply with basic administrative procedure laws and precedents.
“They must follow Congress’s instructions in the underlying laws, which in most cases are to protect public health and the environment. Therefore, they must take action based on law and science. You can’t just issue new regulations or withdraw existing ones,” said Fleischli.
Existing law will be a major obstacle, he said. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, for example, set specific requirements, and he said the NRDC and other groups are willing to go to court to protect the country's basic environmental laws.
“You will have to deal with the courts. And the environmental community is prepared to combat such setbacks if and when they come,” Fleischli said. “We will be there to ensure any rollbacks are addressed lawfully.”
During Trump's first term, the NRDC filed 163 lawsuits against the government, Fleischli said. According to the environmental group, it won nearly 90% of the cases it resolved.
Fleischli, a senior attorney for the organization, said that during Trump's time in office, his administration tried to attack basic environmental protections but was ultimately not very successful.
“Last time they came in and just threw everything at the wall hoping something would stick, but they did it without understanding or understanding the legal restrictions,” Fleischli said. “I think they learned a lot from last time. So they probably won’t be as arbitrary as they were last time.”
If the manufacturing industry were to succeed in enforcing some of its wishes, the consequences would be devastating, said Fleischli.
The industry, for example, is pushing Trump to reconsider and relax the Biden administration's new regulation on particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, or black carbon. The EPA said so Public health benefits The tightened standards include preventing up to 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 asthma cases in 2032 and annually thereafter if the rule is implemented.
“These are really critical public health protections, and removing them would have a huge impact on premature death and asthma, as well as lost work time and illness,” Fleischli said. “It’s just a rule they want to undo.”
When it comes to PFAS chemicals — an issue that manufacturers have highlighted and called on Trump to suspend any new regulations on the chemical — Sivas said she expects the new administration will try to keep the regulations “under the radar a little bit.” to weaken it because the issue had caused considerable public concern.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are notoriously difficult to destroy. They accumulate in the body and are not broken down in the environment.
“I think the environmental groups will probably try to highlight that,” Sivas said. “Because people don’t like it. They don’t like to think they’re drinking PFAS.”
Sivas said she will be interested to see how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might impact environmental protections if he is confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. His nomination sparked concern among public health experts because he opposed vaccines and called for fluoride to be removed from drinking water. But he has also worked to combat toxic pollutants in food and water – an area of concern among environmentalists as well.
On the issue of protecting clean water, producers called on Trump to ensure that EPA's regulatory decisions comply with a landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that rolled back federal protections for many wetlands and streams. Disputes over the so-called “Waters of the United States Rule” have long been litigated and litigated in court whipping layers with administrative changes in recent years.
Sivas said she expects the Trump administration will accede to her demands to limit wetland protections, which the construction industry has also sought. The Supreme Court's decision has drawn criticism from scientists and environmentalists who say destroying protections will threaten water quality across the arid West.
Fleischli said tens of millions of acres of wetlands are at risk from the Supreme Court's decision.
“The EPA has already taken action to respond to the Supreme Court ruling, and now the industry wants even more,” Fleischli said. “It just shows a complete indifference to the importance of the environment. It is an all-out attack on our wetlands and our waterways.”