Article 5 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/world-cop30-trump-administration-rolls-back-environmental-rules-rcna245135

Chow, D. (2025, November 24). With the rest of the world at a Climate Summit, trump administration announces major environmental rollbacks. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/world-cop30-trump-administration-rolls-back-environmental-rules-rcna245135 

Abstract: This article details many anti-environmental actions the United States has recently taken under the Trump Administration. It first notes that the United States was absent during the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference and instead began new initiatives to start oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. This is phrased as an initiative to restore American economic dominance, jobs, and unnecessary regulations/government overreaches. This initiative received immediate bipartisan resistance. In addition, Trump has been proposing new limits to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. For the Clean Water Act he wants to undo protection regarding pollution, runoff, and classification of “waters of the United States”. Only 19% of the United States wetlands would be protected leaving the country significantly more vulnerable to flooding. For the endangered species act, Trump intends to make removing classified endangered species easier and adding new species more difficult. He’s also intending to add a clause prioritizing “economic impacts” in weighing whether to add or remove to the list. 

Opinion: This article demonstrates the United States continued rejection of modern environmental science underneath the Trump Administration. I believe that our decision to not attend global environmental conventions while simultaneously destroying years of climate efforts is inexcusable and blatantly corrupt. Trump is continuing to prioritize business interests (as mentioned in the “revised” endangered species act) over actually maintaining the health of our nation. While this may not be seen during the course of his presidency, this lack of care towards our environment will haunt many future administrations. I feel that especially with weakening the Clean Water Act the administration has exposed its ugly, capitalistic, and unscrupulous motives. He is willing to sacrifice safe, drinkable water for his citizens in order to prioritize the financial success of his ultra-wealthy proponents. We may feel the effects of these alterations for years while he relaxes in Mar-A-Lago. 

Article 4 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/epa-stop-calculating-deaths-avoided-health-care-savings-air-pollution-rcna254021

NBCUniversal News Group. (2026, January 14). EPA to stop calculating deaths avoided and health care savings from Air Pollution Rules. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/epa-stop-calculating-deaths-avoided-health-care-savings-air-pollution-rcna254021 

Abstract: This article primarily details a new decision by Trump’s EPA to stop quantifying money saved in health care costs avoided and deaths prevented from PM2.5 and ozone. The agency claims their rationale was due to not fully understanding the economical ramifications of PM2.5 and ozone exposure. This is because this system quantifies human life and makes several estimates in order to discern a monetary value that is saved. However, this decision came recently after Trump’s administration attempted to dismantle tough standards for fatal soot pollution. This allows significantly more nitrogen oxide to be released which causes fatal heart and lung disease. The elimination of this toxic substance is similarly not counted under the EPA’s new rule. 

Opinion: I believe that this is a very poor decision that is intended to hide flaws within Trump’s EPA. As noted by the article, Trump is continuing to repeal policies in order to facilitate more pollution and use of fossil fuels. This will obviously be a massive detriment to the environment as it will result in pollution of water, air, and ecologies. In order to conceal these damages, he is limiting ways they can be quantified and compared to previous administrations. He then can point to economic strides made with poisonous fossil fuels without the substantial evidence to prove the resulting damages. I believe this is a corrupt and misleading practice which does not benefit the environment, economy, or nation as a whole. 

Article 3 (The Future of Climate Governance: Key Takeaways from John Cruden’s 2025 EELU Distinguished Lecture) 

Sep 26, 2025. (2025, October 17). The future of climate governance –. Vanderbilt Law School. https://law.vanderbilt.edu/future-of-climate-governance-john-cruden-2025-eelu-distinguished-lecture/ 

Abstract: This article compares previous success of the US government with current actions, specifically regarding the development of environmental legislation. Previously the United States was the leader in environmental policy as evidenced by 93% of countries adopting policies similar to the US’s 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. This is because the United States adopted a “top-down” approach due to strong bipartisan support from politicians and citizens. This led to a large stride including the creation of the EPA in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, and Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. However, this bipartisan effort ended in 1990 leading to congressional gridlock, preventing many beneficial legislation from passing. This is partly due to political polarization. In addition, the source asserts that large companies can be huge motivators of climate change as they can demand specific conditions from their suppliers. However, many believe that said corporations are not doing enough. 

Opinion: This article shows the possibility for the United States emergence as an environmental leader is being stifled by our political polarity. We used to lead and helped many countries take great strides in developing environmentally friendly legislation. Now, addressing climate change is only associated with democratic/progressivism when it does not need to be phrased as such. Regardless of one’s political affiliation we need to educate the young on short v. long term goals especially regarding the business and the environment. Hopefully then we can rid ourselves of this congressional gridlock while simultaneously keeping open discourse about many other facets of our nation. 

Article 2 https://elpc.org/news/environmental-consumer-groups-challenge-trumps-unlawful-coal-plant-extensions/

Environmental, consumer groups challenge Trump’s Unlawful Coal Plant Extensions: ELPC. Environmental Law & Policy Center. (2026, January 23). https://elpc.org/news/environmental-consumer-groups-challenge-trumps-unlawful-coal-plant-extensions/ 

Abstract: This article discusses Trump’s decision to continue operations in the Schaefer and Culley coal plants despite their planned retirements already passing. To do this he is unlawfully using Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act which is intended to be used in case of extreme weather or war. He is resuscitating these plants in order to bolster the coal industry. However, this aid is coming at the detriment of all Indiana citizens as they will cost at least $70 million dollars and will lose even more in profits. This unlawful decision prompted the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Sierra Club, Earthjustice representing Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Hoosier Environment Council, and Public Citizens to file rehearing requests. This is increasing economic instability and pollution and will continue to affect many generations. 

Opinion: I completely agree with the public outrage regarding these coal plants. Keeping such plants open harms the environment, aren’t economically profitable, and prevents advancement in energy technologies. Trump cannot use the facade of aiding his economy as these decisions are adding millions in taxes yearly for Indiana citizens. His only rationale is to bolster his rich friends and investments within the coal industry. He is poisoning both the economy and the environment in order to fill his administration’s pockets. To develop our economy and protect our environment we need to construct more plants which prioritize efficiency and utilize more renewable resources. These ancient coal plants do neither and need to be put to rest. 

Article 1: The Laws Still Exist, the Consequences Don’t: American’s Vanishing Environmental Enforcement, 

Thoms, L. (2025, December 15). The laws still exist, the consequences don’t: America’s Vanishing Environmental Enforcement. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice.org/experts/laura-thoms/the-laws-still-exist-the-consequences-dont-americas-vanishing-environmental-enforcement 

Abstract: This article details the current status of environmental laws and more specifically their enforcement. The article asserts that almost all consequences for pollution have collapsed since the beginning of the Trump Administration. The article believes this is because Trump wants to aid large corporations in avoiding their legal obligations, constructing schemes to avoid laws. This is clearly evident in the discrepancy between 2025 Trump’s 20 civil environmental cases v 2024 Biden’s 88. This leaves many corporations, especially powerful ones, to pollute freely which is unsustainable and wrong. Said corporations can dump toxic waste in rivers, release carcinogens into the air, and endanger the environment and US citizens without any punishment. Despite Trump’s promise for the “cleanest air and water” the administration has done the opposite and US families are suffering as a result. 

Opinion: I could not agree more with this article. Climate laws and regulations are set in place for a reason, to be enforced. By ignoring laws for the sake of business advancements we are prioritizing short gain over long term health. If Trump wants to actually support continued business practices throughout America, ensuring sustainability is integral for future-proofing our economy. While this isn’t as immediately economically viable, we will be protecting our resources and won’t have to undergo as many carbon/environmental offsets. This all stems from asserting several pollution baselines and enforcing them without bias. In addition, the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases meaning any significant improvements we make will greatly affect global warming and may similarly inspire others.

Willer-Allred, M. (2026, January 16). Boeing wins in Santa Susana cleanup fight while some insist toxins persist. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://www.theacorn.com/articles/boeing-wins-in-santa-susana-cleanup-fight-while-some-insist-toxins-persist/?utm_campaign=CELPU&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–p5TmNEWKoXrbA-NqzJF84ZHmL_vCBXomilAakDZnDk9Z8fWUDaQBMOf6t52riO-e5mX4J

Above Simi Valley lies the Santa Susana Field Lab, a site that was used during the Cold War for the testing of rocket engines and nuclear research that, over many years of testing and research studies, has become contaminated with radioactive and hazardous chemicals. While the site is divided and co-owned by many groups, including NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy, a majority, 80% to be exact, is owned by the airline company Boeing. For this reason, Boeing was sued in a citizens’ lawsuit focused on soil contamination by three groups known as Parents against Santa Susana Field Lab, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Sadly, however, the Superior Court has ruled in favor of Boeing. The site under the court ruling will remain highly contaminated as little is done in terms of waste disposal and cleanup; an estimated 90-95% of the contaminants on the site will remain completely untouched. The groups in charge of trying to get the site cleaned up have expressed disdain over the court’s ruling and stated how they fear that all the residents, including the children of the nearby community, will be continually exposed to carcinogens and contract cancers that could be could have been prevented. The nearby communities consist of 700,000 people who have reported higher incidence rates of cancer. The causation remains under study, but many blame it on the site’s toxic nature and the fact that a partial nuclear meltdown occurred on it in the year 1959.

This article really upset me, because it feels very similar and in line with many other stories I’ve heard. Boeing seems to be a very amoral and corrupt company from previous articles I’ve read, and the case itself sounds extremely similar to a dozen other cases I’ve heard about. In Australia, there was a town near an asbestos mine that suffered a similar fate, in Pennsylvania, one with a coal mining operation, or, of course, Pripyat and Chernobyl in Ukraine. It seems disturbingly common for towns to suffer from risks of deadly illness due to improper waste disposal or correct safety precautions. I’m upset because while the presence of the contaminants hasn’t been directly linked to the rates of cancer among the nearby citizens, it seems like a plausible or likely cause, and the idea of people potentially being exposed to cancer, so a large corporation doesn’t have to foot the bill for cleanup or deal with the responsibility of their actions, is infuriating.

Cox, J. (2026, January 14). Feds sue to block state oil-field setbacks law. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://www.bakersfield.com/news/feds-sue-to-block-state-oil-field-setbacks-law/article_23cc3bbe-b9ce-40a0-a4a2-d3a80ec95cee.amp.html?utm_campaign=CELPU&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–p5TmNEWKoXrbA-NqzJF84ZHmL_vCBXomilAakDZnDk9Z8fWUDaQBMOf6t52riO-e5mX4J

On the Wednesday of January 14th, the federal Department of Justice filed a lawsuit meant to nullify a California law banning oil-field activity within a 3,200-foot vicinity of sensitive sites like homes. The senate bill it is trying to deem unconstitutional is SB 1137, which was championed by Gavin Newsom and set into motion in 2022 as a result of years of complaints and concerns for oil-related respiratory issues and birth defects thought to be caused by the presence of local oil operations. The Department of Justice says SB 1137 is preempted by two federal laws, the 1920s Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976, and would go against the executive order of President Donald J. Trump to prevent state overreach when it comes to American energy. In a direct statement from Pam Bondi: “This is yet another unconstitutional and radical policy from Gavin Newsom that threatens our country’s energy independence and makes energy more expensive for the American people.” Others, like DOJ Environmental Attorney General Adam Gustafson and U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, shared support for the lawsuit and declared similar statements, believing that the California bill is unlawful and is in the public interest to provide reliable and affordable energy. However, despite the support the lawsuit has garnered, Director Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute believes that the lawsuit has little chance of succeeding. “This is a last-ditch attempt to overturn the law’s critical health protections. I’m confident this historic law will stand.” A preliminary injunction from the DOJ has been announced to occur in the coming days.

I’m glad that at least one legal expert seems to have little faith that the lawsuit(s) will bear fruit; that being said, it is still worrying because this is a large court case with the Department of Justice acting as the plaintiff. From what I can surmise, the Department of Justice does potentially have a case based on the provided statements and evidence; however, it’s unknown whether it will be able to truly hold in law. Nevertheless, it’s interesting, and I daresay important to learn about what’s going on in California state law as it relates to the environment. The potential construction of oil wells near the school zones or housing complexes could result in respiratory issues, birth defects, or carcinogens. I’m personally hoping that whatever does happen, no adverse effects will result in the health of the public.

Yue, S.; et al. (2025, September 12). In last-minute scramble, California lawmakers fail to deliver promised environmental reform. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/09/environment-law-advanced-manufacturing/

Following the announced rollback of California’s landmark environmental law, many environmental justice advocates and California Democrats quickly began to voice their distaste for the decision and urged that the decision could result in the threatening of endangered species and more health-complicating pollution for some of the state’s most at-risk residents. Among the backlash, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire promised a fix to address the concerns raised; however, the legislative session ended with neither Robert Rivias nor McGuire agreeing on a way to go about it, consequently resulting in McGuire’s promises going unfulfilled. This lack of progress has angered environmental justice advocates who said that leaders have failed to make good on their promises. An assembly member, Liz Ortega, stated that “To say that the trust has broken is, I think, is a little bit of an understatement. Several of us have asked to have this fixed, and we were told that it was going to get fixed, and now we’re here and told that it’s not.” In what some see as a symbolic gesture of good faith and others a poor attempt to save face, Senate leaders later announced a promise to reinstate pollution review requirements, despite knowing it did not have time to pass this year. This proposed law, which clearly wouldn’t result in any upcoming change, failed to appease activists and justice groups who voiced concerns about how this will likely cause health risks like asthma in low-income communities of color that will become subject to nearby runoff pollution.

This article and the surrounding issue it addresses are deeply upsetting to me and feel highly reflective of a current political landscape where promises are failing to be kept. It is a disservice as a political figure to make promises you know you can’t keep, and even more so a flaw to do so when failure means putting the health of people and the environment into jeopardy. It’s clear that change is difficult to accomplish in such a bureaucratic system, but nonetheless, it’s upsetting seeing that action has failed to take place, and I think activists are right to be upset. When promises are made by those put into a position of power, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched to expect those promises to be held up. Regardless of all that, though, the article has shed some light on how others are reacting to the laws signed by Gavin Newsom and how California officials are having difficulty trying to please both sides or manage compromises to keep environmental health intact and ensure the health of the very densely populated urban districts, which other similar articles failed to mention when talking about this topic.

Rosenhall, L.; et al. (2025, June 30). California Rolls Back Its Landmark Environmental Law. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/us/california-environment-newsom-ceqa.html

California leaders have rolled back a landmark law that was considered a national symbol of environmental protection and health, among shifting views that deem it the main reason for the homelessness crisis and intense housing shortage that plague the state. The law, the California Environmental Quality Act, has been around since 1970 and has been used to slow suburban growth and allow citizens to object to questionable projects and construction developments. It mandates public participation to identify, disclose, and lessen environmental impacts that may occur from proposed projects. Recently, however, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills, which, in a rare instance, were supported bipartisanly, allowing many development projects to circumvent the need for environmental reviews and lawsuits that have hindered construction in the state. Some were reluctant to allow the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) to be weakened, but ultimately, a majority party agreed that it was a necessary decision among an impossible need to build housing for 40 million residents. Newsom, who found himself conflicted in the decision, had this to say: “If we can’t address this issue, we’re going to lose trust, and that’s just the truth, and so this is so much bigger in many ways than the issue itself.” Many have declared their opposition to the decision, including Catherine Blakespear and Kim Delfino, and an equally many others have shown their support, such as Robert Rivias and Ben Metcalf. The issue remains divisive and controversial, with many unclear about how it may have impacts in the future.

This article demonstrates a problem that is deeply prevalent and controversial. It’s a problem that many, including me, find themselves unsure as to where they stand, given the nature and importance of each side. California is suffering from a very distorted housing market where many find it difficult, if not near impossible, to find shelter, leaving massive populations of people homeless and desperate; however, among an increasingly more fragile surrounding ecosystem, it becomes difficult to know what expenses should and shouldn’t be made. Even those on the side keeping housing barriers high to ensure environmental protection have a hard time not admitting how necessary it is to get more accessible housing. It’s a messy and pretty upsetting situation all around, where it doesn’t seem to me like either side is a clearly better choice over the other. I’m hoping that somehow the decision made will be able to provide more housing while causing relatively little harm to the environment.

Cooley, N. (2025, September 25). California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection Joins State and Global Leaders at Climate Week NYC, Urging Climate Action. Retrieved January 25, 2026, from https://calepa.ca.gov/2025/09/22/press-release-californias-secretary-for-environmental-protection-joins-state-and-global-leaders-at-climate-week-nyc-urging-climate-action/

Secretary of CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), Yana Garcia is attending (or at the time of writing this has already attended) climate week NYC where among a panel of other legislatures she argued and reiterated her belief that climate change is a real threat that is posing a serious threat to the local health of California despite pushback from the Trump administration deeming it not real. She went on to say that “Climate threats are real…California has long been out front on setting ambitious climate goals and staying the course to reach them…Climbing to the fourth largest economy in the world proves that protecting people from environmental harm and economic innovation go hand in hand.” While in New York, Secretary Garcia will participate in several more convenings to share the success of environmental policies in California and convince others to employ similar legislation. Some of the laws Garcia will be promoting include: The Cap-and-Invest program, the Expansion of ZEV vehicles in California, the CARB-Panama carbon pricing agreement, the California-Brazil economic and ecological partnership, and the California and Denmark MOU. By promoting the economic success of these programs, Secretary Garcia hopes to inspire other lawmakers to employ similar 

Personally, I find this article to be really inspiring. It’s not surprising to me that California is leading the charge for environmental action between the different U.S. states, but it is a pleasant surprise to learn that that still somewhat holds up on a more global scale, too. More than anything, I’m pleased that environmental legislation is paying off economically because when it comes to persuading others always seems to play the biggest role. It’s nice to see what California is accomplishing when it comes to stopping climate change and learn more about what’s happening locally, even if the way it’s presented relates to a larger scale. CalEPA has aided in providing 668,000 jobs, raised $33 billion, and brokered 4 international agreements for more climate action. Based on the article content, the organization’s work is very commendable. In truth, I only hold one point of criticism, and it doesn’t even lie with the content of the article, but the way it was written. The article is barebones and straightforward in how it presents the content, so to gain a better understanding and insight, I had to use the links to other pages as well as some Google searches.