Fifteen states have taken legal action against the Trump administration, challenging its declaration of an “energy emergency.” This lawsuit contends that, contrary to the administration’s claims, there is no genuine energy crisis prompting such drastic measures, and the order facilitates illegal exemptions for fossil fuel projects that could harm the environment.
President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, referred to a national energy emergency and mandated swift action from federal entities to advance energy projects in oil, natural gas, and coal mining. However, it notably excluded renewable energy initiatives, such as wind and solar. Despite claims of insufficient energy production, U.S. energy output has surged to record levels.
The lawsuit was lodged in the federal court for the Western District of Washington, asserting that the emergency declaration allows for the circumvention of critical environmental assessments stipulated by laws like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Traditionally, such emergency protocols have only been applied in dire situations, but the states argue that using them for political policy shifts undermines established legal frameworks.
Attorney General Nick Brown of Washington expressed strong opposition to the president’s actions, stating, “The president’s attempt to bypass important environmental protections is illegal and would cause immense harm to Washingtonians.” He emphasized that this move wouldn't effectively lower energy costs or improve national security.
The lawsuit includes the attorneys general from Democratic-led states including California, Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and many others, seeking to have the court declare the executive order illegitimate and halt the expedited permits that would follow it.
In response, a spokesperson for Trump, Taylor Rogers, insisted that the president possesses the sole authority to declare a national emergency, refuting the argument that state officials or courts should have a say in this determination. She defended the administration’s position that amplifying American energy production is essential for both economic growth and national security.
Alongside Trump, the lawsuit also names various federal officials, including Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. While an Army spokesperson has refrained from commenting, inquiries to the Advisory Council went unanswered.
The complaint warns that the invocation of emergency powers must be reserved for genuine crises and that these recent regulatory shifts pose threats to clean drinking water, wildlife habitats, and the preservation of historic and cultural sites across the involved states.
