The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

The Washington Post

The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

Maxine Joselow, The Washington Post – March 26, 2024

Active pump jacks increase pressure to draw oil toward the surface at the South Belridge Oil Field on February 26, 2022, in unincorporated Kern County, California, approximately 141 miles (227 km) northwest of Los Angeles, California. – From rural areas of the eastern states where modern oil production began to cities in southern California where pumpjacks loom not far from homes, lax regulations and the petroleum industrys boom and busts cycles have left the US pockmarked with perhaps hundreds of thousands of oil wells that are unsealed and haven’t produced in decades. In a first, Washington is making a concerted effort to plug these wells by allocating $4.7 billion in federal infrastructure dollars to plug the wells in an effort to lessen the negative health and environmental impact of the disused wells. (Photo by Robyn BECK / AFP) (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images) (ROBYN BECK via Getty Images)More

HOUSTON – As president, Donald Trump vowed to unleash American “energy dominance,” while on the campaign trail, he has summarized his energy policies with the slogan “drill, baby, drill.”

Yet a possible Trump victory in the 2024 election is not delighting oil and gas executives as much as one might expect, according to interviews with several industry leaders at a recent energy conference in Houston.

Fossil fuel firms have found a lot to like in President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has vowed to unravel. The law offers lucrative tax credits for companies to capture and store carbon dioxide – subsidies that several oil giants are eager to exploit, even as they pump record amounts of crude oil and post near-record profits.

In addition, Trump has championed an “America First” approach to trade policy that prioritizes steep tariffs on imported goods. The approach could hike the costs of building new pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and it could heighten anxieties about a global trade war.

Still, fossil fuel executives have slammed Biden’s decision to pause approvals of new liquefied natural gas exports. And during the GOP presidential primary, oil barons filled Trump’s campaign coffers far more than those of his competitors.

If a poll were conducted among energy executives about the 2024 election, the results “would be a little more balanced than people might expect,” Alan Armstrong, president and CEO of the gas pipeline company Williams, said in an interview at CERAWeek by S&P Global.

Armstrong said many fossil fuel executives feel the Biden administration has unfairly demonized their industry because of its role in causing climate change. But that’s a personal sentiment, not a professional one, he said.

“If you’re asking people personally, they’re probably tired of being told they’re bad people by the current administration,” Armstrong said. “But from a business objective standpoint, it would be a much more balanced perspective.”

Trump plans to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, including its generous tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, should he return to the White House, according to senior campaign officials and advisers to the former president.

Yet several oil industry executives have praised the Inflation Reduction Act – the IRA for short – for helping their companies pursue still-unproven green technologies such as carbon capture and clean hydrogen. The subsidy for carbon capture has especially benefited ExxonMobil, CEO Darren Woods acknowledged at CERAWeek.

“I was very supportive of the IRA – I am very supportive of the IRA – because as legislated the IRA focuses on carbon intensity and in theory is technology-agnostic,” Woods said. “They’re not trying to pick a particular technology.”

Vijay Swarup, Exxon’s senior director of climate strategy and technology, added that the IRA is “getting projects to advance.” Exxon has signed contracts to store the carbon captured from an ammonia plant and a steel plant in Louisiana, as well as a yet-to-be-built hydrogen plant in Texas, Swarup said in an interview.

Of course, Trump could not unilaterally repeal the IRA subsidies. He would need Congress to pass legislation, meaning Republicans would need to maintain control of the House and retake the Senate, in addition to clinching the White House.

In that scenario, Mike Sommers, president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said the trade group would aggressively lobby against any proposals to scrap green subsidies that have helped the industry.

“I suspect that when there is an attempt to repeal the IRA – and there will be – it will end up looking more like a scalpel-like approach rather than a butcher knife,” Sommers said. “And we’ll advocate for the provisions that we support.”

While in the White House, Trump proclaimed himself a “Tariff Man” – and he has no intention of abandoning that self-appointed title if reelected.

Publicly, Trump has floated the idea of imposing a 10 percent tariff on every good coming into the United States. Privately, he has discussed with advisers the possibility of imposing a flat 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, The Washington Post previously reported.

At a rally in Ohio this month, Trump also pledged to slap a 100 percent tariff on Chinese vehicle imports – part of a broader tirade in which he warned of a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry if he is not reelected.

Sommers said such proposals, which are widely viewed as likely to spark a global trade war, carry “risks” for his sector.

“Particularly for the products that are produced here in the United States, we need free trade for these goods to flow,” he said. “I think we are concerned about kind of a retrenchment to a more nationalistic approach on trade policy. So that’s one example of an area where we’re not going to be aligned with a potential President Trump.”

But Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump supporter, said he isn’t worried about the former president’s trade policies. He said any adverse impact of tariffs would be canceled out by other pro-fossil-fuel policies, such as more offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.

“In general, I don’t like protectionist policy,” Eberhart said. “But I really think that the Trump administration will be more pro-oil and gas than the Biden administration.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to specific questions for this story. In an emailed statement, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said that “on day one, President Trump will unleash American Energy to lower inflation for all Americans, pay down debt, strengthen national security, and establish the United States as the manufacturing superpower of the world.”

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related Content

Abortions outside medical system increased sharply after Roe fell, study finds

Putting chaplains in public school is the latest battle in culture wars

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Business Insider

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Erin Snodgrass – March 26, 2024

The container ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge has crashed beforeScroll back up to restore default view.

  • The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed after a container ship collided with it.
  • Several entities will likely be on the hook to foot the bill in the aftermath of the disaster.
  • The maritime insurance industry will be saddled with the highest costs.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed on Tuesday after a large container ship ran into it, leading to six presumed deaths and millions of dollars in possible damage.

It’s still too early to estimate the total economic impact of the disaster, but between the cost of rebuilding the decades-old bridge, compensating the victims’ families, and paying out damages for disruptions to the supply chain, the eventual cost of the disaster is expected to be significant.

Who will pay to rebuild the bridge?

President Joe Biden said on Tuesday the federal government should be responsible for paying to reconstruct the damaged Francis Scott Key Bridge.

“It is my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge, and I expect Congress to support my effort,” Biden said.

The bridge was built in the 1970s for about $60 million, but the cost of rebuilding it could be 10 times its original price tag, an engineering expert told Sky News. 

A picture of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland
The Francis Scott Key Bridge, named for Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star Spangled Banner.WilliamSherman via Getty Images

Baltimore is among the busiest ports in the nation, seeing more than a million shipping containers pass through each year. The collapse — which closed the port to all maritime and most road traffic until further notice — is already beginning to wreak havoc on the supply chain.

The cost of building the bridge back fast enough to offset diversions as much as possible could saddle the government with a more than $600 million bill, David MacKenzie, chair of engineering and architecture consultancy COWIfonden, told Sky News.

Who will pay for damages to the ship and its cargo?

The container ship, the Dali, is owned by a Singapore-based firm. The ship’s charterer, Maersk, confirmed to Business Insider that vessel company Synergy Group operates the ship.

However, the companies with cargo aboard the Dali will ultimately be responsible for the ship’s damages and cargo costs.

The Dali was carrying 330 containers, which now must be re-routed, according to Ryan Petersen, CEO of supply chain logistics company Flexport, which had two containers on the ship.

An ancient maritime law known as “general average” dictates that companies with even a single container aboard a ship have to split the damages pro rata based on the number of containers, ensuring all the stakeholders benefiting from the voyage are splitting the risk, Petersen said.

Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship's collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.
Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship’s collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.Anadolu Agency via Reuters

The principle dates back hundreds of years and was originally meant to ensure sailors on board a ship weren’t worried about specific cargo if a disaster required them to start throwing containers overboard, according to Petersen.

Who will pay for everything else?

The majority of the financial fallout is likely to lay primarily with the insurance industry, according to media reports.

Industry experts told FT that insurers could pay out losses for bridge damage, port disruption, and any loss of life.

The collapse could drive “one of the largest claims ever to hit the marine (re)insurance market,” John Miklus, president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, told Insurance Business.

He told the outlet that the loss of revenue from tolls while the bridge is being rebuilt will be expensive, as will any liability claims from deaths or injuries.

The Dali is covered by the Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Ltd., known as Britannia P&I Club, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Britannia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider but told FT it was “working closely with the ship manager and relevant authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this situation is dealt with quickly and professionally.”

Britannia is one of 12 mutual insurers included in the International Group of P&I Clubs, which maintains more than $3 billion of reinsurance cover, sources familiar with the matter told Insurance Business.

Britannia itself is liable for the first $10 million in damages, both FT and Insurance Business reported. Whatever remains is dealt with by the wider mutual insurance group and Lloyd’s of London, a reinsurance market in the UK, according to FT.

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

Slate

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

David Faris – March 26, 2024

It is an overcast, unseasonably warm morning on Wednesday, Nov. 6, and the world has woken up in shock as Donald Trump has emerged as the winner of the U.S. presidential election. America’s cities are once again full of mute, stunned liberals avoiding eye contact with one another on the morning commute, as the grim reality of what Trump might do with this power begins to set in. At his victory speech just after 2 a.m., when the networks called Wisconsin, and thus the election for him, Trump took the stage and declared, “Judgment Day is coming for America’s enemies, and no Marxist, Harvard leftist, gender-radical, illegal, or criminal thug in our great country will be safe come January.” And in some ways that bleak morning might represent the high point of the next four—or 40—years, given what Trump and his allies have in store for us.

This is a worst-case scenario. But it’s far from impossible. A Trump restoration is in the works—and it should feel like an existential threat to everyone who cares about liberal democracy and the incomplete but tangible social, racial, and economic progress that has been made since the New Deal era.

And yet, President Joe Biden’s manifest flaws are dangerously obscuring the scale of the threat of a second Trump term. There is no sense in denying it: Biden looks and sounds very old, and his speaking style, never particularly inspirational, has deteriorated to the point that he is a clear political liability. While he brought what passes for his A-game to the State of the Union, he will need to sustain that level of energy and coherence through an eight-month-long slog to the election to improve his chances of winning.

His decision to run for a second term has not only jeopardized his many achievements but put the very existence of U.S. democracy at much more serious risk. His administration’s staunch support of Israel, a defensible posture in the aftermath of the unconscionable Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, has become a genuinely baffling study in Biden’s inability to pivot or use America’s considerable leverage to do the right thing. The White House hasn’t settled on a winning strategy to address the lingering consequences of post-pandemic inflation, preferring to boast about the very real low unemployment numbers and robust GDP growth that simply have not moved the needle politically. And the Biden administration has remained curiously inert in the face of growing public frustration with the migrant crisis, preferring to blame Congress for refusing to fix it.

Nevertheless, allowing Donald Trump and his friends to plunge our country into a dystopian nightmare of authoritarianism will not help anyone in Gaza, in the grocery store, or at the border. It will worsen, not rectify, America’s history of writing blank checks to far-right governments in Israel. It will not lead to humane policy options for asylum-seekers but instead deliver them into the hands of morally bankrupt demagogues. Electing Trump would merely add more considerable suffering and trauma to theirs, and deprive us all of the ability to do anything about it.

Much has been made of the far-right Project 2025—a blueprint for radically restructuring and reorienting executive-branch policymaking, created by a network of right-wing think tanks and pressure groups—and its terrifying implications for U.S. democracy. But that document concerns only the threats Trump’s reelection poses to executive-branch agencies (and contains many unresolvable contradictions between dismantling and wielding the “administrative state”). Myriad public dangers emanating from the Trump and GOP legislative agenda, as well as the possibility of an even harder-right Supreme Court, are getting far less attention. That needs to change.

Let’s start with the court. That Sonia Sotomayor, who will turn 70 this year, is still sitting on the Supreme Court means that Democrats have yet to grasp how strategic retirements work in the new hyperpartisan political order. Unlike Democrats, who still seem to view a Supreme Court seat as a personal sinecure bestowed upon the righteous for a lifetime of achievement, the leaders of the far-right judicial movement understand the stakes and will place enormous pressure on the oldest Republican appointees to retire under a second Trump term. Clarence Thomas, who has been on the court since 1991, turns 76 this year, and Samuel Alito turns 74. Even John Roberts, who would turn 70 just after Trump’s inauguration, might go.

Think about it this way: If Republicans replace this trio with three early-middle-age ideologues like Amy Coney Barrett, the court will be in the GOP’s hands until everyone reading this article is dead or nearing retirement. If Trump gets to replace Sotomayor, who suffers from a health problem (Type 1 diabetes) that significantly reduces life expectancy, the far right would have an unassailable 7–2 majority with which to remake American society for a generation.

Very little that liberals or progressives care about is likely to survive another 20 or 30 years of reactionary control of the Supreme Court. Although much of the focus has justifiably been on Dobbs, and the looming threat to Obergefellbirth control, and IVF, a conservative supermajority would also likely gut a century of jurisprudence around taken-for-granted features of the American political and economic order, including bargaining rights for organized labor, the constitutionality of federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, and—it nearly goes without saying—the Affordable Care Act. We will effectively return to the early 20th century’s Lochner era, when the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down worker protections and rights for more than 30 years until FDR threatened it with court packing.

Sure, “Vote for Biden so the conservative supermajority can’t get younger and larger” is tough to fit on a bumper sticker, and no one in the party from Biden on down seems to have the stomach for the necessary escalation or a political vision for the court that can be communicated to voters. But unless you want to spend the rest of your lives watching Brett Kavanaugh and his friends upend your lives one right and benefit at a time, you have to hold the line here.

SCOTUS is, of course, also right now at the very center of Trump’s threat to American democracy. The court’s galling decision to repeatedly delay Trump’s trial for the 2020 post-election coup attempt and the Jan. 6 insurrection means that he probably won’t face justice until after he could conceivably win reelection. Most concerningly, this off-the-rails Supreme Court has bafflingly decided to take up the question of a president’s absolute immunity after Trump’s team argued that he should be free from any consequences of anything he did as president. Though cooler heads may in the end prevail over the Thomas-Alito wing, the fact that this is up for debate at all is incredibly alarming.

Much has been made of reports that Trump plans to deploy the military to quell post-election protests under the Insurrection Act. But a Trump unchained from any conceivable repercussions for his decisions in his office is a far worse threat than just that. Imagine for a moment what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor: First of all, the effort to hold him accountable for trying to overthrow the American system of government would be over—instantly. Even more problematically, what conceivable limits would there be on a President Trump beginning in 2025 if SCOTUS has just ruled that his efforts to perpetrate a coup in broad daylight were well within the ambit of his presidential authority?

Who or what exactly would stop Trump from, say, creating a new security apparatus, abducting leftists and political enemies—as he has pledged—and dropping them out of helicopters over the Pacific like the Latin American dictators the far right still worships once did? He could order the hits, then preemptively pardon the people who carry out his orders. That might seem melodramatic and far-fetched. But if the Supreme Court grants him immunity as president, no one could touch him for it legally. And if Republicans simultaneously controlled both chambers of Congress, there would be no impeachment option either. We’ve learned the hard way, far too many times, that a critical mass of elected Republicans will do Trump’s bidding no matter how grotesque his actions.

Maybe he’ll stop short of creating an American Stasi. But a president who is unbound by the law could order the DOJ to gin up investigations of leading journalists, prominent Democrats, professors, activists, and nonprofit leaders. Independent media outlets could be “acquired” by allies or buried under lawsuits and government harassment, as they have been in Trump’s favorite quasi-authoritarian regime in Hungary. Troops could be deployed to garrison blue cities, to not only find and deport immigrants but also chill and repress any dissident fervor that develops in the aftermath of his takeover. He would say he’s merely fighting crime, “illegals,” and election fraud, but Trump could conceivably place the cities he fears and despises, where his political adversaries wield most of their power and influence, under what amounts to an open-ended military occupation.

It gets worse. If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he is highly likely to do so while bringing Republican control of the House and Senate with him. With Mitch McConnell out of the way as party leader, there is a very good chance that the new GOP Senate leadership will nuke the filibuster and govern with a simple majority. And that means that the toxic, vengeful politics of Texas and Florida will go national. Trump showed time and again during his first term that he was not just willing but eager to subcontract his domestic policymaking to the right-wing think tanks that write most state-level legislation for Republicans. National Republicans no longer pretend to have a written or informal platform, but Trump has a campaign website with policy plans called “Agenda 47” that can be read alongside Project 2025, as well as the actual policy record of state Republicans, to give us a pretty clear sense of what they have planned.

Trump continues to spin and deflect, but under unified Republican control, Congress could obviously try to pass a national abortion ban, and he would sign it. House Republicans are already gunning for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, and electing a Republican trifecta this November will mean that, practically speaking, it could soon be either illegal or impossible to be transgender in the United States. The proof is in the hundreds of red-state anti-trans bills introduced and the dozens passed just since 2023, including Florida’s ban on gender reassignment surgery for minors, which also gives the state the right to kidnap children from parents who pursue gender-affirming care. Agenda 47 claims that the Trump administration will “investigate Big Pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side-effects of ‘sex transitions’ in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients.” As Masha Gessen once said, “Believe the autocrat.”

The enemies list doesn’t stop there. Trump’s promised militarized mass-deportation effort could be just the beginning of the crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration; we could also see an effort to end birthright citizenship, a move that, if it succeeds, would result in millions being suddenly stripped of their status as Americans. You will find this not in Project 2025 but in Trump’s online platform and the ugly words that frequently spill out of his mouth, like in May 2023, when he posted a video in which he argued, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.” Whether you believe the “going forward” part of that promise is up to you.

And get ready for a flurry of moves against the remaining redoubts of liberalism and democracy, particularly in secondary and higher education. Radicalized Republicans in Congress will try to bar federal loans and grants from being used at any universities with policies that support inclusion and diversity. This is not speculation: Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a bill in the House last year to prevent public funds from being used at schools with DEI policies, based on existing Texas legislation.

They won’t stop there. Republicans would eventually try to block funding for schools with any kind of race or gender studies programs, as the state of Florida tried to do last year, and before long every syllabus in the country could be scrutinized for evidence of anti-patriotic crimes, until anyone who isn’t a right-wing ideologue is driven from the academy altogether. Trump’s Agenda 47 promises to establish a new national “American Academy” by “by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments”—i.e., strip-mining them for cash. A Trump administration, in other words, would effectively end American higher education as we know it.

That’s to say nothing of how, under GOP rule, every public school librarian and schoolteacher in America could suddenly find themselves under siege by cranks and culture warriors like their counterparts today in Texas and Florida. Agenda 47 threatens to create a new “credentialing body” that would “certify teachers who embrace patriotic values,” to eliminate teacher tenure, and to rescind funding “for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.” And like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump would surely relish the opportunity to sign legislation banning public school teachers from going on strike.

This radical agenda would surely be accompanied by an assault on Democrats’ ability to ever win another free and fair election. Congress would pursue a national voter ID law, a ban on ballot harvesting, harsh new restrictions on mail-in balloting, the elimination of same-day voter registration, and new ways to purge Democrats from voter lists—all plans that are already in the “American Confidence in Elections Act,” which has been introduced in the House. What’s left of the Voting Rights Act would be set aside or perhaps repealed. Maniacs exercising their “constitutional carry” rights would patrol outside polling stations across the country with AR-15s, and Democratic voters would be subjected to endless legal challenges. Any Democratic effort to retake a chamber of Congress in 2026 or win the presidency in 2028 would have to run through President Trump’s formidable election conspiracy machine, the army of aspiring petty autocrats who will be put in charge of the nation’s election machinery, and the elected leaders who will come under enormous pressure not to turn power over to Democrats should those Democrats win.

At that point, the vaunted separation of powers that some analysts still cling to as our last great hope won’t be of much help. With as many as seven Trump judges on the Supreme Court and a federal judiciary that will once again be stocked with his allies and true believers, even many of the brazenly unconstitutional orders and laws that are in the works will have a good chance of standing up in court. And all the while, demoralized Democrats will be pointing fingers at one another for their catastrophic loss, which—knowing Dems—could easily be pinned on Biden’s more progressive policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, whose historic climate provisions would also be reversed almost immediately. Efforts to highlight the contributions of his age and Gaza policies to this disaster would run straight into the same narrative-makers who pinned the disappointing scale of Democrats’ 2020 victory on progressive activists chanting “Defund the Police” rather than on Biden’s overcautious campaign and reliance on appealing to disenchanted Republicans.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the America that a second Trump term would create might be an almost unrecognizable realm of economic insecurity, political persecution, racist hatred, and gender tyranny, a Christian nationalist hellscape that would be virtually impossible to dismantle once it is put into place.

Joe Biden may not be the ideal man standing between us and this horror show, but he is a seasoned politician with a strong track record and a plenty competent team. (Plus, he’s all there is unless he decides to step aside.) He and every Democrat in the White House and Congress must do everything they can to shift the focus from Biden’s age and unpopularity to Trump’s very public laundry list of malevolent plans, and national media organizations must continue to do the relatively easy work of telling readers and viewers about Trump’s reactionary agenda. Readers may be completely burned out on learning about Trump’s crimes, but the alternative—that Trump gets into office and perpetrates more of them—is truly unthinkable.

70 million Americans drink water from systems reporting PFAS to EPA. Is yours on our map?

USA Today

70 million Americans drink water from systems reporting PFAS to EPA. Is yours on our map?

Austin Fast, Cecilia Garzella and Yoonserk Pyun – March 21, 2024

At least 70 million Americans get their water from a system where toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were found at levels that require reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That’s according to new data the EPA released in its ongoing 5-year review of water systems across the nation. The number will almost certainly grow as new reports are released every three months.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, are nearly indestructible chemicals widely used across industries for decades. Found in drinking water, food, firefighting foam, and nonstick and water-repellent items, PFAS resist degradation, building up in both the environment and our bodies.

Salt Lake City; Sacramento, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Louisville, Kentucky, were among the major systems reporting PFAS contamination to the EPA in the latest data release.

Map: Where the EPA found pollutants

This map shows water systems included in the EPA’s records, as of Jan. 11. It’s based on boundaries developed by SimpleLab, a water-testing company. Click on a system to see the number of pollutants detected at or above the EPA’s minimum reporting levels and how much the most concentrated pollutant exceeded those levels. Points represent systems where the exact boundaries are not available. If you don’t see a map, click here

The man-made chemicals have turned up in water systems large and small, from those serving a few thousand customers to over half a million.

Of about 3,800 systems included so far, 1,245 measured at least one PFAS compound above the EPA’s reporting levels, according to USA TODAY’s analysis.

The EPA plans to collect data from thousands more systems through 2026, including many of the nation’s largest systems, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia.

Read our previous coverage: EPA detected “forever chemicals” in water systems serving 46 million. Is yours on our map?

What are forever chemicals?

PFAS can lead to serious health problems, including increased risk of some cancers, if people are exposed to them over a long period of time. Even at very low doses, PFAS can pose health risks.

The EPA’s minimum reporting level – the lowest concentrations reliably measured by most laboratories – for some PFAS are measured in parts per trillion. The current thresholds are near zero, replacing older limits that were higher and didn’t detect smaller concentrations of PFAS, said Shalene Thomas, a PFAS industry expert and emerging contaminants program manager at Battelle, a nonprofit research institute.

Read the story: PFAS contamination is Michigan’s biggest environmental crisis in 40 years

“People hear that, and they think, ‘This is really, really low. Why are we concerning ourselves with this?’” Thomas said, referring to the detection levels. “The risk to individuals and the population is based on not just what the concentration is but what the frequency of that exposure is.”

“How often are you exposed, and what’s the duration of the exposure?”

The purpose of the reporting limits, Thomas said, is to trigger water utilities to react and find treatment solutions if needed.

“Why is there a limit? It’s not like if you’re above this number, you’re going to die, and if you’re below that number, you’re going to live,” Thomas said. “It’s about population protection. It’s an action level so that utilities can react and protect you.”

Read our previous coverage: Dangerous levels of PFAS detected in water for 27 million. Did the EPA find it near you?

Is there a national drinking water standard for PFAS? 

There are no enforceable national drinking water standards in the U.S. for PFAS, but the EPA is expected to issue new regulations this year.

Last March, the EPA proposed the first-ever national drinking water standard for six PFAS. Though there are thousands of PFAS chemicals, the six compounds in the regulation had the highest manufacturing volume in the U.S. and are thought to be the most toxic, Thomas said.

If the rule is finalized and implemented, public water systems will be required to monitor for these chemicals, notify the public and reduce PFAS contamination if levels exceed the proposed standards.

Water utilities tasked with treating PFAS

Water utilities didn’t manufacture or use the chemicals, Thomas said, yet they are still tasked with cleaning them up and protecting the public.

Once the EPA’s regulation is finalized, the agency would likely use discretionary authority and focus its efforts on going after primary polluters, Thomas said.

However, not all water utilities are equipped to install advanced and costly treatment systems to reduce PFAS from treated water. Systems vary from region to region, each with their own water sources and technical challenges that can make treatment less feasible.

Adapting to changing climate conditions is a concern for Sacramento, California, where about 80% of water supplies come from the American and Sacramento rivers. During dry years, they use groundwater, but if those wells are contaminated with PFAS, the city might not be able to rely on them, said Carlos Eliason, a spokesperson from the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities.

The city has taken several groundwater sources out of service because they contained levels of PFAS above state guidelines. Upcoming federal regulations could increase the amount of groundwater sources that need to be shut down.

The Shasta Groundwater Treatment Facility is the largest groundwater treatment facility in Sacramento, California. The facility can produce up to 4 million gallons of drinking water per day.
The Shasta Groundwater Treatment Facility is the largest groundwater treatment facility in Sacramento, California. The facility can produce up to 4 million gallons of drinking water per day.

Similarly, 90% of Salt Lake City’s water supply is from surface water, but groundwater wells are still important during droughts. PFAS pollution was found in two wells, one of which is important for peak summertime use, said Laura Briefer, director of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities.

“Water is such a priority for us in the western United States, where water is scarce,” Briefer said. “When we have challenges where contaminants can impact our ability to use water for public purposes, that is a really profound issue. We don’t have a lot of water to spare.”

More than 6,000 miles away in Guam, a U.S. island territory in Micronesia with a longtime military presence, civilians rely primarily on water produced from an aquifer in the northern half of the island. Should the aquifer become contaminated, there are no reasonable alternatives, as defined by the EPA.

Of nearly 100 water supply wells that provide water to the island, about a third had PFAS that exceeded the EPA’s proposed regulations.

The level of funding to U.S. territories to cover the cost of treatment is not enough, said Miguel Bordallo, the general manager of Guam Waterworks Authority. The authority will have to significantly raise the rates it charges its customers to finance these capital improvement projects, Bordallo said.

Guam also absorbs costs that most utilities on the U.S. mainland don’t feel, such as shipping hazardous byproducts from PFAS treatment off the island.

“It’s a huge concern, but the way we view it is that it’s the train that’s coming down the tracks and there’s no way to stop that,” Bordallo said of the imminent PFAS rule.

“Rather than trying to stop that train, we’re trying to get ahead of it.”

Austin Fast is a data reporter on the USA TODAY investigations team and Cecilia Garzella is a data fellow. 

Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ government study finds

CNN

Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ government study finds

Jen Christensen, CNN – March 22, 2024

Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ government study finds

Almost half of the tap water in the United States is contaminated with chemicals known as “forever chemicals,” according to a study from the US Geological Survey.

The number of people drinking contaminated water may be even higher than what the study found, however, because the researchers weren’t able to test for all of these per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or PFAS, chemicals that are considered dangerous to human health. There are more than 12,000 types of PFAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, but this study looked at only 32 of the compounds.

PFAS are a family of ubiquitous synthetic chemicals that linger in the environment and the human body. PFAS exposure is linked to problems such as cancer, obesity, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, liver damage and hormone suppression, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

In June 2022, based on the latest science, the EPA issued health advisories that said the chemicals are much more hazardous to human health than scientists originally thought and are probably more dangerous even at levels thousands of times lower than previously believed.

Health effects from the chemicals can be difficult to specify in part because people may be exposed in different ways and at different stages of development and because there are so many types of PFAS chemicals with types and uses that have changed over time.

Most people in the United States have been exposed to some PFAS, and some may be at higher risk, such as industrial workers involved in making PFAS and people who live near those facilities. There’s ongoing research to determine how different levels of exposure to PFAS chemicals might lead to various health effects.

Experts say it’s important for people to understand their risk of exposure through tap water. Water filters may help somewhat if tap water is contaminated, and there are moves to regulate some PFAS chemicals in US drinking water.

Where PFAS concentrations are higher

Previously, there was limited information on exactly how much PFAS chemicals are in residential tap water, said the authors of the research, published in July 2023 in the journal Environmental International. They added that this study is the most comprehensive to date that includes both private wells and public water sources.

The scientists collected water samples directly from taps at 716 locations — 269 from private wells and 447 from public sources — between 2016 and 2021. Based on their findings, they estimate that at least one PFAS chemical would be detected in 45% of US drinking water samples.

This US Geological Survey map shows the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation. The findings are based on a USGS study of samples taken between 2016 and 2021 from private and public supplies at 716 locations. The map does not represent the only locations in the US with PFAS. <strong><em> </em></strong> - USGS
This US Geological Survey map shows the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation. The findings are based on a USGS study of samples taken between 2016 and 2021 from private and public supplies at 716 locations. The map does not represent the only locations in the US with PFAS. – USGSMore

Most of the contamination came from water sources near urban areas and in areas that generated PFAS, like manufacturing that uses the chemicals in its products or sites where waste was collected.

The highest concentrations of PFAS in drinking water were found in the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, the Eastern Seaboard and Central/Southern California, the study said.

Concentrations were similar between private wells and public supplies.

PFAS can be found in many places, studies show, so toxicologist Dr. Jamie DeWitt is not surprised that it is in so much drinking water.

“There’s been almost no place scientists have looked where they have not found PFAS,” said DeWitt, director of the Environmental Health Sciences Center at Oregon State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences. DeWitt was not involved in the 2023 study.

PFAS are found in hundreds of household items. The chemicals are used to make carpets and clothes stain-resistant. They keep food from sticking to pans and food packaging, and they’re good at keeping grease and water from soaking through. PFAS are in mobile phones, commercial airplanes and low-emission vehicles, in the foods you can buy at the farmers market or the grocery store, and in rainwater and dental floss. They’re even in the dust that collects in your home.

A 2019 study suggested that PFAS chemicals could be found in 98% of the US population. With that in mind, the new 45% number may sound low, but DeWitt said there could be a couple of factors at play. For one, a number of utilities have been making an effort to remove PFAS from the water. Homeowners could also have filters on their systems that make it so PFAS are not as easily detectable.

“I think that’s still a pretty high number, considering,” she said.

Checking for PFAS in water

DeWitt said that it’s important for people to know what’s in their drinking water but that they don’t necessarily need to be scared.

“I don’t think people should be afraid, but they should be aware and armed themselves with knowledge so that they can get information that will help them to make decisions,” she said.

She recommended looking at your local utility website to get its most recent water report. Utilities will disclose what’s in the water and what they are doing to reduce contaminants.

A carbon filter can help, but it has to be changed regularly. If used too long, the filter can become saturated with chemicals and not work as well. Households can also use reverse osmosis filtering systems, but those can be expensive.

The EPA has proposed the first national drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals. The proposed limits set the allowable levels for these chemicals so low that they could not be easily detected.

If the standards are finalized, water systems will have to determine whether levels of these PFAS pose a potential risk. They may also need to install treatment or take other actions, the EPA said, and may even need to switch to different water sources.

In August 2023, the EPA said it is conducting the “most comprehensive monitoring effort for PFAS ever” at large and midsize public water systems and hundreds of small water systems.

If PFAS is in 45% of US water systems, the country will have a lot of work to do, said Dr. Graham Peaslee, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and concurrent professor of chemistry and biochemistry who does PFAS research at the University of Notre Dame.

“I think that we should try our best to work on how to clean this up. My fear is that this is, global warming aside, this is probably the most expensive environmental problem we’re ever going to face,” said Peaslee, who was not involved in the 2023 study. ”There’s nothing that will magically fix it. It’s fairly expensive to clean this up. And it’s a recurring cost, and there’s no permanent solutions to it for any particular utility. It looks frightening.”

But the cleanup will have to be done, he said, because these chemicals carry real health consequences, and people can’t exactly avoid drinking water.

“It’s really insidious, this poison,” Peaslee said. “We are going to have to get inventive on how to filter it out for all of our days.”

Drinking water in US prisons may contain dangerous levels of ‘forever chemicals’: Study

The Hill

Drinking water in US prisons may contain dangerous levels of ‘forever chemicals’: Study

Sharon Udasin – March 21, 2024

Nearly half of American prisons are located downstream from water sources that are likely contaminated with cancer-linked “forever chemicals,” a new study has found.

Due to insufficient water quality testing in and around such sites, officials have only found that 5 percent of U.S. carceral institutions are situated in watersheds that definitively contain these toxic compounds, according to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health. But tens of thousands of people are incarcerated at those facilities — and presumptive sources of exposure were found near many more sites.

When it comes to toxins like forever chemicals, also known as PFAS, incarcerated populations are of particular concern because they have minimal ability to reduce their exposures and are therefore especially vulnerable to acute health effects, the researchers stressed.

“If you think of the incarcerated population as a city spread out over this vast archipelago of carceral facilities, it would be the fifth largest city in the country,” senior author Nicholas Shapiro, a medical anthropologist the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement.

That figurative “city,” he continued, has “potentially very high levels of toxicants in its water and no ability to mitigate exposure.”

Notorious for their ability to persist in both the human body and in the environment, PFAS have been connected to a variety of illnesses — including kidney cancer, thyroid disease and testicular cancer.

There are thousands of types of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), found in industrial waste, certain types of firefighting foam and household products, such as nonstick pans, waterproof apparel and many cosmetics.

To draw their conclusions about prisons’ potential exposure to the substances, the researchers assembled a list of the country’s 6,118 carceral facilities from the Department of Homeland Security and conducted a geospatial data analysis to pinpoint which sites were situated in watersheds with known or likely PFAS pollution.

They also considered whether watershed boundaries were at higher elevations with respect to the carceral institutions, as such positioning increases the likelihood that pollutants are infiltrating the facility’s water supply.

Ultimately, they identified 310 sites — or 5 percent of the total facilities — situated in such watersheds, at a lower elevation than at least one known source of PFAS contamination.

At least 150,000 people, of which at least 2,200 are juveniles, live in these facilities, according to the study.

But the reality may be far worse. The authors found that nearly half of all U.S. carceral institutions — 47 percent — have at least one presumptive source of PFAS pollution at a higher elevation than the facilities and within their watershed boundaries.

More than half of U.S. juvenile facilities — 56 percent — meet that description, per the findings.

These potentially polluted prisons, jails and detention centers — the majority of which are state- and county-run institutions — house about 990,000 people, including at least 12,800 juveniles, the authors noted.

Many carceral facilities may be contending with multiple PFAS exposures, with 31 percent of U.S. institutions located in areas with more than one presumptive source of contamination, according to the study. About 13 percent have more than five presumptive sources.

Because about a third of the carceral facilities were missing complete population data, however, the total number of individuals exposed could be much higher, the researchers warned.

Co-author Lindsay Poirier, an assistant professor of statistical and data sciences at Smith College, emphasized the challenges the researchers faced in conducting the study due to the “substantial data gaps” in water quality monitoring and population numbers.

“We’re trying to draw attention to areas that have been underassessed,” Poirier said in a statement.

In addition to the lack of transparent information available, the authors pointed to potential environmental justice issues, as the residents of U.S. prisons “are disproportionately Black, Latinx, Indigenous, low-income, and LGBTQ+.”

Incarcerated youths are also disproportionately adolescents of color, with Black youths more than four times more likely than white youths to be held in a juvenile institution, per the study.

U.S. prisons, they explained, are therefore “an important window into how the justice system advances public health inequities,” the researchers stated.

Although the authors could not test whether the polluted water was for sure entering the prisons, they stressed a need for further research, as these toxins can have lifelong health impacts.

“The most rigorous and consistent water testing is done in well-resourced or particularly engaged communities,” Shapiro said, noting that these same communities are best equipped to reduce their exposure.

“Incarcerated populations have a lot in common with marginalized populations elsewhere in the country that lack the resources and political clout to get their water cleaned up,” Shapiro added. “That needs to change.”

Leonard Leo, Koch networks pour millions into prep for potential second Trump administration

NBC News

Leonard Leo, Koch networks pour millions into prep for potential second Trump administration

Katherine Doyle – March 21, 2024

WASHINGTON — Huge funding from influential conservative donor networks is flowing into a conservative venture aimed at creating a Republican “government-in-waiting,” including over $55 million from groups linked to conservative activist Leonard Leo and the Koch network, according to an Accountable.US review shared exclusively with NBC News.

Launched by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, Project 2025 is a two-pronged initiative to develop staunch conservative policy recommendations and grow a roster of thousands of right-wing personnel ready to fill the next Republican administration. With former President Donald Trump now the GOP’s presumptive 2024 nominee, the effort is essentially laying the groundwork for a potential Trump transition if he wins the election in November.

With contributions from former high-level Trump administration appointees and an advisory board that has grown to over 100 conservative organizations, proponents describe Project 2025 as the most sophisticated transition effort that has existed for conservatives. The initiative includes a manifesto devising a policy agenda for every department, numerous agencies and scores of offices throughout the federal government.

In this Nov. 16, 2016 file photo, Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo speaks to media at Trump Tower in New York. Leo is advising President Donald Trump on his Supreme Court nominee.  (Carolyn Kaster / AP file)
In this Nov. 16, 2016 file photo, Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo speaks to media at Trump Tower in New York. Leo is advising President Donald Trump on his Supreme Court nominee. (Carolyn Kaster / AP file)

Since 2021, Leo’s network has funneled over $50.7 million to the groups advising the 2025 Presidential Transition Project as part of its “Project 2025 advisory board,” according to tax documents reviewed as part of the analysis by Accountable.US, a progressive advocacy group. That sum includes donations from The 85 Fund, a donor-advised nonprofit group that funnels money from wealthy financiers to other groups, and the Concord Fund, a public-facing organization.

In 2022, the donor-advised fund DonorsTrust, which received more than $181 million from Leo-backed groups from 2019 to 2022, contributed over $21.1 million to 40 organizations advising Project 2025. It contributed nearly $20 million to 36 nonprofit organizations advising Project 2025 in 2021.

Leo, a top conservative megadonor, has worked to shift the American judiciary further to the right, having previously advised Trump on judicial picks while he was in office and helping to build the current conservative Supreme Court majority.

In addition to Leo’s funding to organizations advising Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s own donations surged in 2022. It contributed $1,025,000 to nine of the advisory groups, up from a total of $174,000 in grants to other nonprofit groups a year earlier.

The Heritage Foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The review by Accountable.US also found that oil billionaire Charles Koch’s network directed over $4.4 million in 2022 to organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board via its donor conduit, Stand Together Trust.

Project 2025’s vision for the next conservative administration’s energy agenda would rapidly increase oil and gas leases and production through the Interior Department to focus on energy security, and proposals include reforming offices of the Energy Department to end focus on climate change and green subsidies.

The Environmental Protection Agency would cut its environmental justice and public engagement functions, “eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights,” according to a proposal drafted by Mandy Gunasekara, a former chief of staff at the EPA under Trump.

The advisory board for Project 2025 includes representatives from conservative groups led by veterans of the Trump administration, such as America First Legal, the Center for Renewing America and the Conservative Partnership Institute, as well as conservative mainstays like the Claremont Institute, the Family Research Council and the Independent Women’s Forum.

Accountable. US executive director Tony Carrk warned that Project 2025’s stark conservative program and its advisory groups are made possible by funding from right-wing donors’ funneling tens of millions of dollars to the effort.

“The ‘MAGA blueprint’ isn’t a one-off project — it’s backed by the same far-right figures who have long dictated the conservative agenda,” Carrk said. “Leo, Koch and others should be held to account for propping up a policy platform that puts special interests over everyday Americans and poses an existential threat to our democracy.”

While the groups advising Project 2025 haven’t been supporting a candidate outright, many of the people leading them or with longtime affiliations have close ties to Trump after having served in his administration. NBC News projects that Trump has now clinched the delegate majority for the Republican nomination, setting up a rematch with President Joe Biden in November.

State Farm to non-renew 72,000 policies in California

KTLA

State Farm to non-renew 72,000 policies in California

Iman Palm – March 21, 2024

State Farm to non-renew 72,000 policies in California

State Farm General Insurance Company plans to non-renew about 30,000 property insurance and 42,000 commercial apartment policies in California, the company announced Wednesday.

State Farm, California’s largest insurer as of 2022, said the move would impact 2% of its total policies in the state and was made to ensure “long-term sustainability.”

3D printed fire-resistant home being built in L.A. County

The 42,000 commercial apartment non-renewals represent a complete withdrawal from the commercial apartment market in California. The other 30,000 non-renewals would impact homeowners, rental dwellings, and other property insurance policies, according to State Farm.

The announcement applies to California customers only. The company said those impacted will be notified between July 3 and Aug. 20.

“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health, which continues to be impacted by inflation, catastrophe exposure, reinsurance costs, and the limitations of working within decades-old insurance regulations. State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now,” the company said in a statement.

The company also said it will continue working with the Department of Insurance, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other policymakers as they pursue reforms “to establish an environment in which insurance rates are better aligned with risk.”

Can California lure insurers back to the state?

In February, the state’s insurance department announced proposals to reform California’s insurance regulations. The new proposal would allow insurance companies to switch from using historical data to catastrophe modeling, meaning companies would calculate projections of future risk when raising rates and pass on the cost of reinsurance to consumers.

The new changes are expected to take effect at the end of the year.

Last year, State Farm announced it would stop accepting new insurance applications for all business and personal property in California.

Since then, other companies like Allstate have announced similar moves.

State Farm discontinuing 72,000 home policies in California in latest blow to state insurance market

Associated Press

State Farm discontinuing 72,000 home policies in California in latest blow to state insurance market

Associated Press – March 21, 2024

FILE - Homes leveled by the Camp Fire line a development on Edgewood Lane in Paradise, Calif., on Nov. 12, 2018. State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting summer 2024, the insurance giant said. The Illinois-based company, California's largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday, March 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)
Homes leveled by the Camp Fire line a development on Edgewood Lane in Paradise, Calif., on Nov. 12, 2018. State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting summer 2024, the insurance giant said. The Illinois-based company, California’s largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday, March 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)
FILE - Residences leveled by a wildfire in Paradise, Calif., are seen on Nov. 15, 2018. State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting summer 2024, the insurance giant said. The Illinois-based company, California's largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday, March 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)
Residences leveled by a wildfire in Paradise, Calif., are seen on Nov. 15, 2018. State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting summer 2024, the insurance giant said. The Illinois-based company, California’s largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday, March 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting this summer, the insurance giant said this week, nine months after announcing it would not issue new home policies in the state

The Illinois-based company, California’s largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday.

“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health, which continues to be impacted by inflation, catastrophe exposure, reinsurance costs, and the limitations of working within decades-old insurance regulations,” the company said in a statement Wednesday.

“State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws,” it continued. “It is necessary to take these actions now.”

The move comes as California’s elected insurance commissioner undertakes a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming the state’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas, the news group said.

The California Department of Insurance said State Farm will have to answer question from regulators about its decision to discontinue coverage.

“One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller said. “We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.”

It was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation.

Last June, State Farm said it would stop accepting applications for all business and personal lines of property and casualty insurance, citing inflation, a challenging reinsurance market and “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure.”

The company said the newly announced cancellations account for just over 2% of its California policies. It did not say where they are located or what criteria it used to determine that they would not be renewed.

Conservative House Republicans unveil plan to attack Biden admin policies. Here’s what they would target

USA Today

Conservative House Republicans unveil plan to attack Biden admin policies. Here’s what they would target

Ken Tran, USA TODAY – March 20, 2024

WASHINGTON – The Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus made up of House Republicans, unveiled a course on Wednesday for dismantling many of President Joe Biden’s signature policies – though the proposal’s chances are slim for now.

As part of the RSC’s annual budget, first shared with USA TODAY, the group is pushing to roll back or loosen many of the Biden administration’s major federal rules and regulations.

Republicans in the group are taking aim at a wide range of policies, including initiates to combat climate change, a Defense Department policy reimbursing travel for service members who must cross state lines to receive abortions and Justice Department gun control regulations. In the budget, Republicans call for a return to former President Donald Trump’s approach during his term in office.

Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., speaks to reporters after dropping out of the race for Speaker of the House, and endorsed Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., as House lawmakers seek to elect a new speaker in Washington.
Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., speaks to reporters after dropping out of the race for Speaker of the House, and endorsed Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., as House lawmakers seek to elect a new speaker in Washington.

“The RSC Budget would take bold and necessary action to rein in the Biden Administration’s dangerous regulatory regime, returning to the example set by former President Donald Trump,” the proposal reads, accusing Biden of implementing “a radical” agenda.

The conservative group, led by Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., released their plan after Biden announced a federal budget earlier this month with an eye toward new social programs for housing, health care and child care.

But the budget framework from the GOP group, which comprises almost 80% of the House Republican conference, offers a preview into what policy priorities Republicans are itching to advance should they reclaim the White House, the Senate and hold on to the House.

The budget doesn’t just endorse a slate of GOP-led legislation. It also includes pushes meant to curtail the Biden White House’s executive authority “to restore the appropriate balance of power” between Congress and the presidency.

Included is Rep. Kat Cammack’s Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS ACT, that would require Congress to sign off on any rule from a presidential administration that has an economic impact of $100 million or more. The bill passed the House last year on a party-line vote, though it has little chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The proposal also goes after Biden for vetoing a bill passed last year that would have done away with a Labor Department rule for 401(k) plans. The rule allows fund managers to invest the retirement plans in “environmental, social and governance” funds (ESG) if it is in the best interest of the investor.

The funds are typically centered around “socially responsible companies” that focus on addressing environmental and social problems. Republicans have derided the rule as too “woke,” but the rule does not require investment into ESG funds.

Today, the RSC’s proposal is simply a conservative wish list, actions that have little chance of becoming law while Democrats control the Senate and Biden remains in the White House.

But as the presidential election and congressional races across the country pick up steam, the plan could reflect how Republicans are seeking to rally voters in the fall.

“It’s on us to reign in the executive branch and rescind their authority to make decisions that belong to the legislature,” Hern said in a statement to USA TODAY. “Our constituents sent us here to provide a check on the White House. We can’t be passive about it, it’s time for results.”