Congress

Biden admin cedes pivotal air pollution rules to Trump

Published

1 year ago

January 2, 2025

As the Biden administration enters its final weeks, EPA continues to press forward on some fronts, while relinquishing on others to incoming President-elect Donald Trump.

In a decision issued Monday that marks the latest twist in a see-saw regulatory battle, the agency rejected an industry coalition’s petition to scrap toughened safeguards against accidental releases of dangerous air pollutants from refineries, chemical plants and thousands of other operations that must file plans to manage those risks.

In the petition, the coalition, whose members include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, wrote that the more stringent regulations impose “multiple unlawful and highly prescriptive mandates that undermine the performance-based flexibility that is the linchpin of process safety.” Besides rescinding the rules, the coalition asked EPA to freeze implementation.

In a thumbs-down that marked one of his last official acts, however, ex-EPA Administrator Michael Regan found that the petition “fails to identify any information or circumstances that warrant mandatory reconsideration.”

The rejection clears the way for proceedings to resume in a lawsuit brought last year by coalition members before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But with Trump set to take office Jan. 20, they could also ask his administration to revisit the regulations.

It was a tactic used successfully during Trump’s first term, when EPA largely rolled back an earlier bid to tighten a similar batch of requirements issued in the final days of President Barack Obama’s second term.

American Chemistry Council spokesperson Scott Jensen said Thursday the coalition is already working on a letter to Trump’s transition team that will request a start to a new rulemaking process. While Jensen did not have a specific timetable, “obviously we want it to go over to them as soon as possible,” he said in a phone interview.

Elsewhere, the Biden administration is already yielding`sway to its successor.

Late last month, EPA signaled that it is ending plans for now both to widen the geographic reach of its latest good neighbor smog control framework and tighten emission standards on large trash incinerators that may be located near people of color and low-income communities.

The final versions of both rules had been under review by the White House regulations office since September, with a goal of completing work before the year’s end. Instead, both have now been withdrawn, according to notices posted on a government tracking website.

Asked earlier this week about the reasons for the withdrawals, EPA spokesperson Nick Conger in an email noted that only recently amended consent decrees in litigation with environmental groups pushed back the respective deadlines to finalize both rules.

“EPA will continue working on these Clean Air Act actions,” Conger said in an email.

For the update to the incinerator standards, the new due date falls near the end of this year.

Under an earlier EPA proposal, the rule would have toughened New Source Performance Standards and emissions guidelines for dozens of large municipal incinerators that are sources of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, lead, mercury and other pollutants.

The new December 2025 deadline means that almost another year will pass before EPA updates standards that have remained largely unchanged since 1995.

Filings in the litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia do not explain why the challengers, led by the California-based East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, agreed to the delay. An Earthjustice attorney representing them could not be reached for comment.

Under the Clean Air Act’s good neighbor provision, states are barred from allowing smog-forming pollution from power plants and other industries that contributes to downwind compliance problems outside of their borders.

The original good neighbor framework, issued in March 2023, initially applied to 23 states. It aims to ensure nationwide compliance with EPA’s 70 parts per billion limit for ground-level ozone, a lung-damaging compound that is the main ingredient in smog.

Under the proposed expansion issued a year ago, EPA sought to add Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico and Tennessee to a cap-and-trade program to cut power sector emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Since then, the agency has stayed implementation of the original 23-state good neighbor plan in response to a Supreme Court ruling.

“We decided from our part” that “it didn’t make sense for EPA to finalize” the proposed expansion that would then immediately be stayed, Sierra Club senior attorney Zachary Fabish said in an interview. Previously due in November, the final version must now be completed by February 2026.

Asked whether he has any concerns about the Trump administration’s follow-through, Fabish said “the law requires something to be done.” Otherwise, he added, the environmental advocacy group will be at the forefront “of making sure that EPA and the states are following through on their obligations.”

Congress

OMB nominee ‘can’t commit’ to forgoing ‘pocket rescissions’ funding gambit this year

Published

27 minutes ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s pick for deputy director of the White House budget office told lawmakers Tuesday he can’t promise the administration won’t unilaterally cancel funding later this year without Congress’ consent.

Hal Duncan, the nominee to serve in the No. 2 position at the Office of Management and Budget, defended the controversial “pocket rescission” maneuver during his first of two confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill this week.

“Pocket rescissions have been executed by previous administrations, notably the Ford administration,” Duncan said during testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. “I can’t commit to any of the fiscal tools the administration may or may not use in the future.”

His comments come after the White House defied Democrats and many Republicans last year by canceling $4.9 billion in foreign aid without a vote from Congress.

Typically, if an administration wants to withhold funding Congress has already appropriated, the White House will send a rescissions request. Then Congress has 45 days to approve, amend or reject the request to cancel the funding, with inaction considered rejection.

But Trump administration officials claim they can submit a formal request to rescind funding with less than 45 days left in the fiscal year and then withhold it until it lapses on Oct. 1, regardless of whether Congress acts, even though lawmakers in both parties consider the tactic an illegal end-run around Congress’ “power of the purse.”

The Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead last fall to cancel much of the foreign aid it nixed through a pocket rescission. But the high court has yet to settle major questions about whether the Trump administration has violated the Constitution or federal law in withholding billions of dollars Congress has appropriated.

If the Trump administration attempts the tactic again this year, it would happen in August or September.

Duncan will appear Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Trump leaves Congress in dark on Iran deal

Published

5 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans want a say on a deal President Donald Trump is touting to end the monthslong war in Iran.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday sparked bipartisan scrutiny on Capitol Hill about what the deal might entail.

Senators in both parties agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford. “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal, including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis told reporters.

Weighing heavily on several lawmakers is the possibility of an agreement landed by the administration looking very similar to the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Democrats believe Trump should’ve never abandoned that deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — in his first term, while GOP defense hawks despised it from the start.

“If [the Iranians] can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham of the Trump administration’s forthcoming deal. “If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal.”

One legacy of that 2015 controversy: the GOP-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. That law gives members the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on Trump’s deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

“I just don’t know enough about it yet, and I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much about it,” he said, adding that he expected Vance or other administration officials to brief members on the deal at some point.

What else we’re watching:

— DEMS NONCOMMITTAL ON SPEEDY CLAYTON CONFIRMATION: It’s unclear if Senate Republicans will be able to move at the lightning speed they’d hoped to in confirming Jay Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence by the end of the week. If every Senate Intelligence member agrees, Clayton could get a committee vote Thursday following his Wednesday hearing. Confirming Clayton on the Senate floor hours later would require getting agreement from every senator to speed up the process. Opposition from a single member would punt a vote to next week.

— THUNE AIMS FOR HOUSING BILL PASSAGE THIS WEEK: Thune is hoping his chamber can pass an updated version of a bipartisan housing affordability bill by the end of the week. The legislation comes after talks between Thune, Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren. Two Senate Democratic aides granted anonymity to discuss ongoing plans said the bill was also discussed with the House and the White House.

Katherine Hapgood contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal

Published

17 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is touting a deal that would end the monthslong war with Iran — and potentially ease some of the political headwinds bearing down on Republicans.

GOP lawmakers still have lots of questions.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday left an information vacuum on Capitol Hill, where senators of both parties were left airing concerns about what the deal might entail.

Even most Republicans agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The bipartisan scrutiny of the long-brewing agreement is a legacy of the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Trump withdrew from the deal in his first term, and now he is back with an agreement that — pending release of the text and final negotiations yet to come — could end up looking like Obama’s deal. That has raised the hackles of both defense hawks who despised the original agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Democrats who believe Trump never should have left it in the first place.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of those defense hawks, told reporters that he was “pulling for a deal,” while also making note of serious discrepancies in the terms that have emerged thus far.

“The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” Graham said.

“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, adding in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there” to cease enrichment.

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The possibility that Congress would take any kind of vote on the agreement is also a legacy of the 2015 deal. Amid bipartisan concern about the Obama administration’s pursuit of nuclear talks, the GOP-controlled House and Senate that year passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.

That law, however, does not require Congress to approve a deal — it rather gives it the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto. That means each chamber would have to effectively muster a two-thirds majority to block Trump, something it did not come close to doing in 2015.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

The lack of specificity was par for the course on Capitol Hill Monday, with many senators expressing exasperation that text of the signed agreement has not yet been released.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. Vance indicated in a series of interviews that the administration will attempt to ensure Iran does not develop or obtain a nuclear weapon but left details regarding civilian nuclear facilities and potential uranium enrichment unaddressed.

The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News. The administration also argued in the memo that the agreement “beats” the Obama-era agreement.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on the deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

“I don’t expect that to happen,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said about a vote. “They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the administration should send the deal to Congress “if they want it to be something other than a political agreement, like the JCPOA was.”

Most congressional Republicans have been eager for Trump to find a way out of the nearly four-month war, which has driven up energy prices ahead of the November elections. Thune predicted Monday that a deal would “have a very positive impact on the economic situation in the country and that obviously will translate into the political situation in the country.”

Some of Trump’s most vocal allies on Capitol Hill praised the agreement Monday.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said has had conversations with senior White House officials and he was “very hopeful.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who is likely the next Senate GOP campaign chair, added on X: “President Trump deserves our trust and support as he works to bring peace to the Middle East.”

Democrats were largely keeping their powder dry Monday on how they would handle a vote on the agreement. Some could find it hard to oppose a deal that ends hostilities on negotiated terms roughly similar to what was secured under a Democratic president in 2015.

But plenty of Democrats questioned what was gained by the conflict.

“We still don’t know the details,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “The American people need to know exactly what’s in the deal. … We know this for certain: We are worse off than before Trump began his foolish war of choice.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.