This post is part of the Tracking the Effects: Environmental History and the Current United States Federal Administration series edited by Jessica DeWitt, Shannon Stunden Bower, and Niiyokamigaabaw Deondre Smiles. Submissions for this series are being accepted on an ongoing basis. Learn more here.
Environmental governance in the United States has historically relied on a balance among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, during the first Trump administration (2017–2021), this equilibrium shifted. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) experienced a notable decline in enforcement activities, not due to improved compliance but as a result of deliberate policy changes. Concurrently, the judiciary emerged as a pivotal arena for environmental justice, compensating for the executive and legislative branches’ retreat. This post explores the causal relationship between the weakening of EPA enforcement and the judiciary’s enhanced role in environmental protection.
Decline in EPA Enforcement Under the Trump Administration
The Trump administration implemented policies that significantly curtailed the EPA’s enforcement capabilities. Civil penalties for environmental violations declined by 85%, compared to the Obama administration’s first term, and the average annual number of civil cases referred by the EPA to the Department of Justice decreased by about one-third, compared to Obama’s second term.1 Consequently, EPA-initiated criminal cases fell to fewer than 70 in 2020—the lowest level in over 30 years.2 This decline in enforcement did not reflect a cleaner environment or improved compliance among polluters; rather, it signaled a policy shift that deprioritized regulatory oversight in favor of economic and deregulatory agendas, leading to a perception of regulatory leniency.
Several factors contributed to the decline in EPA enforcement during the Trump administration. First, under Administrator Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s leadership deprioritized enforcement by restructuring the agency to reduce the influence of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and by appointing officials with deregulatory agendas. Second, the administration proposed significant budget cuts to the EPA, including a 31% reduction in 2017, which, although not fully enacted by Congress, signaled a diminished commitment to environmental enforcement and led to decreased staffing levels. Third, policy shifts actively discouraged aggressive enforcement. In January 2018, the EPA issued interim guidance directing regional offices to defer to state agencies before pursuing enforcement actions, even in cases where state agencies lacked the capacity or willingness to act. This decentralization enabled polluters in states with lax oversight to avoid meaningful federal scrutiny.3 Furthermore, the Department of Justice curtailed the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in 2018, limiting the ability of violators to mitigate penalties through community-based environmental improvements and reducing incentives for compliance.4
Legislative and Executive Retreat from International Environmental Commitments
While executive enforcement weakened, the legislative branch offered little compensatory action. Historically, Congress has shown a reluctance to pass robust climate legislation. One of the most telling examples of this is the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the early 2000s—a decision that signaled long-standing congressional resistance to international climate commitments. This trend continued during the Trump years.
During the first Trump administration, the Republican Party held control of both chambers for the first two years (2017-2019) and the Senate for all four years. Given President Trump’s anti-regulatory stance, the Republican-controlled Congress was largely aligned with the administration’s deregulatory agenda or unwilling to challenge it on environmental matters.5 Democrats’ attempts to defend EPA science and strengthen environmental protections such as preserving independent advisory panels were stonewalled. Despite mounting scientific evidence of climate change and public support for environmental protection, Congress failed to pass significant new climate legislation during this period. The Trump administration’s 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Agreement further cemented the perception that the U.S. federal government was retreating from both domestic and international environmental leadership.
Judiciary’s Emergence as a Guardian of Environmental Justice
What is the consequence of the executive and legislative branches’ abdication of environmental responsibilities? The judiciary increasingly became a venue for environmental advocacy and enforcement, as environmental and public-interest groups increasingly litigated the rollbacks. For instance, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and its partners filed lawsuits against the Trump administration’s executive orders in 2017 that aimed to open vast areas of U.S. waters to offshore drilling, arguing that these actions violated existing environmental laws. In 2019, the Alaska federal district court ruled against Trump, reaffirming that the administration exceeded its authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which does not allow a president to undo permanent withdrawals.6
Moreover, courts play a crucial role in halting or reversing even the second Trump administration actions that threatened environmental justice. On his first day back in office, Trump has frozen climate funding including clean energy for low-income households. At the behest of environmental groups, a federal judge ordered in April 2025 the federal agencies including the EPA to resume climate funding efforts. Such judicial interventions underscore the courts’ function as a check on executive actions that undermine environmental protections.7
Causal Relationship Between EPA Enforcement Decline and Judicial Activism
The weakening of EPA enforcement created a regulatory vacuum that necessitated judicial intervention. As traditional enforcement mechanisms faltered, affected communities and environmental advocates increasingly relied on litigation to address environmental harms. This shift not only elevated the judiciary’s role in environmental governance but also led to the development of new legal precedents and interpretations of environmental laws.
Furthermore, the judiciary’s willingness to hear and rule on environmental cases signaled to the public and policymakers that the courts could serve as a viable avenue for environmental redress. This perception likely encouraged more stakeholders to pursue legal action, reinforcing the judiciary’s central role in environmental protection during periods of executive and legislative inaction.
Limitations and Risks of Judicial Dependence
However, this shift toward judicial oversight as the main avenue for environmental accountability has its limitations. Courts can only act on cases brought before them, and their decisions are inherently reactive, addressing harms after they occur. The judiciary does not have the institutional capacity to develop or implement policy proactively. It cannot replace the regulatory expertise and resources of the EPA or the democratic legitimacy of congressional legislation.
Additionally, judicial outcomes can be inconsistent and are subject to the ideological composition of the bench. During the first Trump administration, over 200 federal judges were appointed, including three Supreme Court justices, shifting the federal judiciary in a more conservative direction.8 This raises concerns about the long-term reliability of the courts as defenders of environmental rights. Relying too heavily on courts for environmental governance risks weakening broader democratic accountability and reducing environmental policy to a patchwork of litigation outcomes.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s deliberate reduction of EPA enforcement activities, coupled with its withdrawal from international environmental agreements, signaled a retreat from environmental governance by the executive and legislative branches. In this context, the judiciary emerged as a critical actor in upholding environmental justice, stepping in to fill the enforcement void. This dynamic illustrates how shifts in one branch of government can precipitate increased responsibilities in another, reshaping the landscape of environmental governance in the United States.
Feature Image: Donald Trump delivering a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 1, 2017, announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Photo of the Day: 6/2/17. The Rose Garden | June 1, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian). Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal.
Notes
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Annual Results for Fiscal Year 2021. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/office-enforcement-and-compliance-assurance-annual-results-reports
2 Ozymy, J., & Ozymy, M. J. (2023). Persistence or Desistence: Prosecuting Environmental Crimes During the Trump and Obama Administrations. Ecology LQ, 50, 55. Uhlmann, D. M. (2020). New environmental crimes project data shows that pollution prosecutions plummeted during the first two years of the Trump Administration. Environmental Crimes Project Report.
3 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2020). Environmental Protection: Action Needed to Ensure EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Activities Support Its Strategic Goals. GAO-21-82. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-82
4 A Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) used by EPA is an environmentally beneficial project that a violator voluntarily agrees to undertake as part of resolving an enforcement action. It goes beyond what the law requires, and it must directly benefit public health or the environment. The SEP does not replace the penalty, but it can reduce the monetary penalty the violator would otherwise pay. For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental-environmental-projects-seps
5 Konisky, D. M., & Woods, N. D. (2018). Environmental federalism and the Trump presidency: A preliminary assessment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 48(3), 345-371.
6 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). (2019. April 1). Court Stands Behind Ban on Offshore Drilling in Arctic and Atlantic. https://www.nrdc.org/bio/nrdc/court-stands-behind-ban-offshore-drilling-arctic-and-atlantic
7 Raymond, N. (2025, April 15). US judge blocks Trump’s freeze on climate, infrastructure grants. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-judge-orders-immediate-thaw-climate-infrastructure-funds-politico-reports-2025-04-15/
8 Gramlich, J. (2021, January 13). How Trump compares with other recent presidents in appointing federal judges. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/
