How Trump Is Trying to Crush California’s Climate Policies

The Trump administration has taken a series of extraordinary steps to attack California’s position as a national leader in environmental protection, enlisting at least a half-dozen federal agencies to undermine the state’s efforts to pivot away from fossil fuels.

President Trump has been vocal in his contempt for Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat and possible 2028 presidential contender whom he refers to as “Gavin News***.” His administration has marshaled the full power of the federal government to clamp down on the state’s climate initiatives.

Mr. Newsom, a loud and pointed critic of Mr. Trump, pledged soon after the 2024 election to insulate California’s environmental policies from a second Trump administration — perhaps making the state an inviting target for a president who has been using government levers to punish perceived enemies.

There are almost too many examples to list.

Mr. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have blocked California from setting its own limits on automobile pollution, which federal law has permitted since the 1970s. The Energy Department has announced $75 million for a new coal export terminal in Oakland, Calif. The Interior Department has paid energy companies to cancel planned wind farms off the coast of California and other blue states. The president ordered a company to restart a pipeline that caused one of the state’s largest oil spills in 2015.

And just last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration signaled it could curb the power of the California Coastal Commission, a state agency that has protected the shoreline from threats like oil spills for more than half a century.

Mr. Trump’s “destructive behavior has grown significantly,” said Jerry Brown, the former four-term Democratic governor of California who made climate change a signature cause. “It’s completely against a traditional Republican doctrine of respecting states’ rights.”

The state has filed a slew of lawsuits to try to undo the administration’s actions.

“Donald Trump attacks California because we are building a future that doesn’t depend on fossil fuels,” Anthony Martinez, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, said in an email. “This fading industry desperately attempts to tighten its grip on the world economy even as clean energy dominates, growing cheaper and faster to deploy than anything they can offer. Follow the money, and you will find the truth behind his war on California’s climate policies: this is a White House run for Big Oil, by Big Oil.”

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was intervening in California because state policies had led to higher energy prices and oil refinery closures, though blockysts say market forces have also fueled these trends.

“Governor News*** has continued carrying out the left’s costly and unpopular green new scam,” Ms. Rogers said in an email. “President Trump is working relentlessly to reverse the damage done by California Democrats and unleash American energy dominance.”

Richard Goldberg, a former senior counselor for the National Energy Dominance Council, which Mr. Trump created last year to coordinate energy policy, said the White House had genuine policy disagreements with California, but it also saw a political advantage in feuding with Mr. Newsom.

“I would say it’s probably a beneficial byproduct that it happens to be Newsom,” Mr. Goldberg said. “But regardless of who the governor is, California has important energy resources that are needed for the country’s national security.”

A Clash Over the Coast

California’s 840 miles of coastline are one of its most treasured resources, drawing millions of tourists and locals annually and stretching from redwood forests in the north to palm-tree-studded beaches in the south.

In his first term, Mr. Trump largely left the coast alone, with the exception of an unsuccessful attempt to spur offshore oil and gas drilling. This time, his administration has sought to bring not only more oil rigs, but also more pipelines and possibly more rocket launches by SpaceX from a coastal military base.

In November, the Interior Department announced a draft plan to allow new oil drilling in federal waters off California for the first time in roughly four decades. The plan called for up to six oil and gas lease sales in those waters, including in an expanse off Santa Barbara where a 1969 oil spill galvanized the modern environmental movement.

Asked about the proposal at the time, Mr. Newsom rolled his eyes and called it “dead on arrival in California.” He said that the state would “absolutely” challenge the plan in court once it was finalized.

The clash over the coast was just beginning, and an offshore oil pipeline would be the next sticking point.

In March, Mr. Trump ordered the Houston-based company Sable Offshore Corp. to restart its pipeline off Santa Barbara, even though state agencies had denied permits for the project, saying it had failed to fix damage that led to a 2015 oil spill. To justify the move, the president invoked a Cold War-era law that the administration said superseded state regulations.

The law, the Defense Production Act, has typically been used in emergencies like hurricanes and the Covid-19 pandemic. In this case, the administration said the emergency was an energy shortage in California fueled by the war in Iran, which had choked global oil supplies.

Yet the administration has also paid energy companies hundreds of millions of dollars to cancel planned wind farms in the waters off California.

“It really is the definition of hypocrisy to say that we’re in a national energy emergency and we need to empower companies like Sable, but at the same time, we’re paying taxpayer dollars to not do offshore wind projects,” said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit based in Santa Barbara.

Last week, the administration opened a new front in its efforts to wrest control of the coast. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration held a public hearing in Santa Monica, Calif., to reconsider the power of the California Coastal Commission, which for more than half a century has had the legal authority to review and object to federal actions or projects that affect coastal resources.

Mr. Trump has long complained about the commission, which once tried to stop him from erecting a 70-foot flag on his oceanfront golf course near Los Angeles. Elon Musk, a Trump ally, has also tangled with the agency over increasing the number of SpaceX rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

The review could lead to the commission losing federal certification of its programs or federal grants that account for 10 percent of its budget. If the administration succeeds, it could also set a precedent for similar actions in other coastal states.

“There could be an impact on what happens in Oregon if California no longer has this authority,” said Charles Lester, a marine science researcher at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a former executive director of the coastal commission.

A Multi-State Fight

Another environmental showdown between California and the Trump administration could also reverberate far beyond the state’s borders, affecting vehicles sold across the country.

This fight dates back to the 1970s, when heavy smog choked Los Angeles. In response, Congress p***ed the Clean Air Act, which blockly allowed California to set automobile pollution standards that were stricter than federal rules, as long as the state obtained waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency. The landmark law also allowed other states to adopt California’s standards.

Ever since, the waivers have helped rein in smog-forming pollutants like soot and nitrogen dioxide that can contribute to asthma and lung disease. They have also been a powerful tool for curbing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

Mr. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have shattered that dynamic.

Last year, Mr. Trump signed a congressional resolution to revoke a waiver that had allowed California to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. And in June, Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, urged Congress to rescind waivers for four other emissions rules affecting everything from light trucks to lawn mowers.

California has filed multiple lawsuits to maintain its vehicle rules. At a hearing on Wednesday, a Justice Department attorney argued that the state lacked standing to sue over the four additional waivers because Congress hadn’t yet acted on them. A federal judge will soon decide that question.

The outcome of these legal battles could dictate the types of vehicles available at dealerships nationwide, said Casey Katims, the executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors working on climate policy. He noted that 11 other states have pledged to follow California’s lead in banning gas car sales by 2035, representing more than 40 percent of the U.S. vehicle market.

“Attempts to block climate progress in California,” he said, “don’t live just in California.”

Brad Plumer contributed reporting.