Climate 411

President Trump’s attack on independent Inspectors General

A group of former Inspectors General for eight federal agencies just sued President Trump for illegally firing them.

President Trump fired about 17 independent Inspectors General en masse in a two-sentence email released Friday night, January 24th – including the Inspectors General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Interior. This week, President Trump also fired the USAID Inspector General. Inspectors General are nonpartisan, and many of the 18 who have been fired were appointed by President Trump during his first term.

In the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, eight of the fired Inspectors General – for the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor, and the Small Business Administration – point out that President Trump violated the law by failing to provide 30 days’ notice to Congress and failing to provide the statutorily required explanation for the dismissals.

Under the Inspector General Act on 1978, the president must provide Congress advance notice and explanation in order to remove an inspector general. Just days after the mass firings, the Congressional Research Service updated its report on Removal of Inspectors General to state, “It is not yet clear how President Trump’s action on January 26, 2025, will ultimately be resolved,” and that “it does not appear that the Administration followed the congressional notice and waiting period requirements laid out in the IG Act.”

Here are a few examples of why President Trump’s purge of our national Inspectors General, and this lawsuit challenging it, are so important.

Inspectors General play an essential role in illuminating government fraud and wrongdoing

Inspectors General play a key role in ensuring accountability within federal agencies, including ensuring that those agencies ensure transparency and follow proper processes.

For instance, during the first Trump Administration, the EPA Inspector General investigated and uncovered numerous legal and process violations at the agency, including:

  • An improper rollback of air pollution standards for cars and trucks

An audit completed in 2021 by EPA’s Inspector General confirmed that the first Trump administration violated transparency, record-keeping, and other procedural requirements while rolling back federal Clean Air Act standards to limit air pollution from vehicles.

The EPA Inspector General’s report documented EPA’s failure to conduct technical analyses, follow established processes, and provide transparency in its actions and assumptions. The report also stated that “EPA did not follow its established process for developing regulatory actions,” including a failure to “conduct analysis related to executive orders on the impacts of modified GHG standards on vulnerable populations.”

That audit was prompted in part by a request from Senator Carper, demonstrating that Inspectors General can play an important role in investigating concerns identified by Members of Congress.

  • A flawed and dangerous lead-based paint strategy

In 2019, EPA’s Inspector General found that the first Trump administration’s lead-based paint strategy focused on shallow public relations efforts rather than actually protecting children’s health.

The Inspector General’s report described EPA’s failure to effectively implement and enforce the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule. That rule was designed to protect children from dust or chips of lead-based paint. Lead poisoning causes serious health problems, particularly for children’s brain development, and there is no safe level of exposure. In 1978, the U.S. banned lead-based paint for residential use, but the paint is still commonly found in houses built before 1978.

The Inspector General’s report found that EPA’s program lacked sufficient “objectives, goals and measurable outcomes to track progress and determine accountability,” and that “[e]ffective oversight and enforcement are needed to further reduce lead exposures from renovation, repair and painting activities.”

  • More legal loopholes and scandals

During the first Trump administration, the EPA Inspector General helped create accountability for the agency’s unlawful attempts to create a loophole for super-polluting glider trucks.

The EPA Inspector General also scrutinized Administrator Scott Pruitt’s many scandals, including spending taxpayer money on lavish travel and a $43,000 phone booth. These episodes illustrate the unique and crucial role that Inspectors General play in protecting the public from government corruption.

Posted in News, Policy / Authors: / Comments are closed

Experts condemn the Trump administration’s attack on strong Clean Car Standards

Americans are already speaking out in droves against the Trump Administration’s proposal to roll back America’s Clean Car Standards.

The proposal, if finalized, would increase pollution by billions of tons, cost consumers hundreds of billions of hard-earned dollars at the gas pump, and attack long-standing state leadership on clean cars.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are now accepting public comments (you can write to them here) and they’ll hold three public hearings in September – in Fresno, California; Dearborn, Michigan; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (The administration had originally announced hearings in Los Angeles, Detroit and Washington D.C. – then abruptly cancelled them with no explanation.)

But right from the beginning, before the public comment period even started, people across the country were voicing their concerns about rolling back these critical protections. Automakers themselves, including Ford and Honda, have disavowed the path the Trump administration is taking.

Here are a few of the more recent statements:

Read More »

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Jobs, News, Partners for Change, Policy / Read 1 Response

Freight truck fleets, manufacturers, and dealers to Pruitt: stop supporting super-polluting glider trucks

Diesel pollution from a freight truck in 2008. Pruitt is proposing a loophole that would allow new trucks to evade modern clean air protections by using high-polluting old engines like this one. Photo: EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Administrator Scott Pruitt, is proposing to roll back important safeguards and allow certain heavy-duty freight trucks – commonly known as “glider trucks” – to evade modern pollution standards.

Rolling back these protections would have terrible impacts for human health, including as many as 4,100 premature deaths in 2025 alone. Glider trucks can emit harmful pollution at a rate up to 450 times that of other new freight trucks. So the broad chorus of opposition from the public – including from EDF – is no surprise.

But you might be surprised by who else is strongly opposing EPA’s proposal.

Every segment of the freight industry — truck manufacturers, fleet owners, freight shippers and other stakeholders — has spoken out to oppose this rollback.

These industry stakeholders recognize that Pruitt’s proposal would undo decades of progress in cleaning up pollution from heavy-duty freight trucks. Moreover, it would undermine their significant investments in pollution control innovation.

The proposed rule would create a loophole for the small segment of the freight truck industry that manufactures super-polluting glider trucks, which use old diesel engines that are not equipped with modern pollution controls — and the loophole would be at the expense of other truck manufacturers and dealers who play by the rules.

These freight truck industry words speak for themselves – EPA needs to reverse course on this deeply damaging proposal:

TRUCK DEALERS

The National Automobile Dealers Association, as well as numerous individual truck dealers, have expressed opposition to the proposal.

TriState Truck Center, based in Memphis, Tennessee and employing about 400 people:

“We have been a heavy duty dealer for 72 years. I have personally worked here since 1972. I remember the days years ago when our truck shop was so thick with the exhaust from the trucks that you could not see the other side of our shop. Today, our shops are clean and exhaust free due to the new EPA compliant engines. Do we really want to go back to those days? That’s what more glider kits will do with engines that are both obsolete and environmentally unfriendly.” — Public Comment of TriState Truck Center

MANUFACTURERS

Daimler Trucks North America, a leading manufacturer of heavy-duty vehicles in the United States, opposes the proposed rule despite being a major supplier of glider kits:

“[T]he EPA’s proposed revisions to the glider rules would undermine the investments that DTNA and Detroit Diesel Corporation — and all other U.S. manufacturers — made in advanced technologies and exhaust after treatment, while opening the vehicle and engine markets to manufacturers who find simple options to skirt EPA regulations altogether and market high emitting engines or vehicles.” – Public Comment of Daimler Trucks North America

The Volvo Group, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks, and direct employer of more than 13,000 Americans:

“A repeal of the Phase 2 glider provisions will make a mockery of the massive investments we’ve made to develop clean diesel technology. Any relaxation of the production caps is unnecessary and would exacerbate the negative competitive and environmental impacts from the glider industry. It’s imperative that the Agency ensure that all actors are playing by the same set of rules.” — Public Comment of the Volvo Group

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include major car companies including Ford, General Motors, and Toyota, opposes the proposal and says this rule could have implications far beyond glider vehicles, resulting in drastic increases in air pollution from other motor vehicles:

“One glaring (and perhaps unintended) result of the Proposed Repeal is that any auto or engine manufacturer (or its customer) could circumvent EPA’s GHG regulation of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines merely by incorporating a few used components into their finished products …Vehicle manufacturers or builders of ‘kit vehicles’ could attempt to avoid compliance with emission standards in their entirety by incorporating used powertrain components into their vehicles. A circumvention of criteria pollutant standards in this way would adversely affect public health and run contrary to other EPA efforts to promote low on-road emissions.” — Public Comment of Auto Alliance

The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), representing leading global manufacturers of heavy-duty and medium-duty vehicles and engines including Honda, Caterpillar, Cummins, Ford, General Motors, Navistar, Volvo, and Yamaha:

“[S]uch a loophole would be especially damaging to EMA’s members who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technologies – technologies that make them the world’s leaders in the manufacture of new heavy-duty and medium-duty on-highway engines and vehicles. EPA’s loophole would open the door for other manufacturers (that have not made the same investment) to enter the U.S. marketplace, even with used engines that have no advanced emission-control systems whatsoever.” — Public Comment of EMA

PACCAR is a manufacturer of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines, including a major manufacturer of glider kits. Even PACCAR, which would be able to sell glider kits through the proposed loophole, acknowledges the harmful implications of EPA’s proposed rule:

“PACCAR supports the comments submitted by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) regarding EPA’s interpretation of the CAA used in this NPRM.  In particular, PACCAR agrees with EMA that EPA’s interpretation of CAA Section 202(a)(1) will create a loophole that could  … lead to traditionally ‘new’ engines being built with one or more refurbished parts in order to avoid being regulated to the current CAA emissions requirements.” — Public Comment of PACCAR

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation’s largest manufacturing association representing nearly 14,000 small, medium, and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states:

“The framework created by the existing [2016 HDP2] regulations strikes an appropriate balance without creating a competitive disadvantage for manufacturers that comply with GHG standards. . . . [T]he proposed repeal of the glider vehicle requirements from the Phase 2 rule could have unintended consequences that affect the market for new heavy-duty vehicles.” — Public Comment of NAM

FLEETS AND SHIPPERS

UPS, which owns the largest truck fleet in the U.S.:

“Allowing gliders to remain unchecked as to fuel economy and emissions means that the cleanest heavy truck fleets in the nation will keep paying the price for clean air, while gliders don’t. In short, before asking [for] more improvements in the best-of-the-best trucks, EPA should pursue cleaner emissions in trucks that are already the worst-of-the-worst in emissions.” — Public Comment of UPS

The American Trucking Associations, which represents more than 34,000 companies, convened a Fuel Efficiency Advisory Committee comprised of leading truck fleets from across the country, including UPS, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, and Penske Truck Leasing. The committee voted unanimously “to oppose any attempts to repeal the glider provisions in the [2016] final Phase 2 rule.”

“Our members have worked together tirelessly in support of technologies and programs that have resulted in the production and adoption of the cleanest and most fuel-efficient diesel trucks ever. EPA’s decision to allow the unchecked growth of the glider market and encourage the continued sale of antiquated engine technologies grossly undermines the investment decisions of thousands of companies, organizations, and businesses.” — Public Comment of American Trucking Associations

The Ceres BICEP Network (Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy) is comprised of leading companies such as Adobe, eBay, IKEA, L’Oreal, Nike, The North Face, Patagonia, Sierra Nevada Brewing, and Unilever:

“It is important to us that the transportation of our goods does not result in negative public health impacts, and we believe that those trucking companies that have invested in clean technologies, and those companies that use them, should not be penalized. Given that this proposal will result in significant harm to public health, and undermine a level playing field for those who support clean technologies, we strongly oppose this proposal.” — Public Comment of BICEP

Posted in News / Read 1 Response