Legislative Update: Senate Appropriations Backs $38.6B for Environment and Public Lands

Senate Appropriations Backs $38.6B for Environment and Public Lands

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY2026 Interior-Environment spending bill by a 26-2 vote, allocating $38.6 billion in base discretionary funding, which is roughly equal to the prior year’s level. It exceeds the House’s proposed $38 billion figure. It explicitly preserves funding levels for clean water and state revolving funds, countering a proposed Trump administration cut that would have reduced that funding to $300 million.

Senators, including Subcommittee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), described the measure as a bipartisan compromise that avoids the severe reductions favored by the House GOP and President Trump.  Murkowski emphasized that the draft bill would keep clean water and state revolving funds at fiscal 2025 levels. The Trump administration had proposed cutting the state revolving fund from $2.8 billion to just $300 million earlier this year. However, Murkowski suggested this was an “unserious” proposal when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin appeared before her subcommittee.

In the House, Republicans are pursuing a FY2026 spending strategy that significantly scales back President Trump’s proposed cuts but still reduces nondefense discretionary spending by approximately $45 billion, or nearly 6 percent. Although the White House initially proposed a 23 percent cut, amounting to $174 billion, House appropriators have advanced a more modest reduction, while defense funding remains mostly flat, excluding additional funds from a separate reconciliation package. When factoring in rescissions and previously withheld foreign aid funds, actual proposed reductions in nondefense spending appear closer to 4.5 percent.

The House proposal cuts funding for the EPA by $2.1 billion to $7 billion in FY2026.  Despite these efforts to strike a balance, Republican leaders have only advanced the two least controversial appropriations bills to the House floor — Defense and Military Construction-VA — both of which garnered some bipartisan support. More contentious bills have yet to move through the full committee.  The House bill also prohibits funding for EPA’s controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).

Internal party divisions remain pronounced. While some conservatives argue the cuts don’t go far enough, moderates are uneasy with reductions to popular domestic programs. Already, three Republicans voted against the Defense bill, and others are threatening amendments to eliminate foreign aid or target programs like the National Endowment for Democracy.

Meanwhile, the Senate is preparing spending bills with higher topline figures, setting the stage for complex bicameral negotiations.

Given the fractured House GOP, lack of consensus with Senate Democrats, and looming September deadlines, another yearlong continuing resolution (CR) appears increasingly likely. Such a stopgap would hold agency funding flat and potentially eliminate earmarks, an outcome that could appease the Freedom Caucus. However, Democrats may resist any CR that allows further White House interference in program spending, while some Republicans have already announced their opposition to another stopgap, criticizing it as a failure of congressional responsibility.

Senate Republicans Wary of New Recissions

Senate Republicans are expressing growing reluctance to support another rescissions package, citing concerns that further funding clawbacks could derail bipartisan cooperation on appropriations and increase the risk of a government shutdown. The July package was politically difficult, and several GOP senators, including Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), warned that pursuing more rescissions now would strain relationships necessary to pass future spending bills. With a deal in place to move forward on three initial appropriations measures, Senate Republicans are cautioning that additional clawbacks could undermine leverage in broader budget negotiations with the House and the White House.

Despite this hesitation in the Senate, the Trump administration is actively considering new rescission efforts. Budget Director Russ Vought may employ “pocket rescissions,” which would allow the administration to cancel appropriated funds without congressional approval—a move the Government Accountability Office and Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) have deemed illegal. Some Republicans, like Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), support evaluating rescissions through the regular appropriations process if tied to waste or abuse. However, others, such as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), argue that pushing another package now would be too disruptive with year-end funding deadlines approaching.

Zeldin Announces Rollback of Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Including Vehicle Standards 

On July 29, the EPA announced plans to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding,” the controversial scientific and legal determination that has served as the foundation for greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the repeal would not only reverse the finding itself but also eliminate burdensome climate-related rules implemented over the past 16 years, including federal mandates on vehicle emissions and electric vehicles. The agency projects the move would save Americans $54 billion annually and describes it as the most consequential deregulatory action in U.S. history. The proposed repeal is now open for public comment.

Administrator Zeldin, who has criticized the endangerment finding as the “holy grail of the climate change religion,” is leading a broader effort to restore regulatory balance at the EPA. This includes a reassessment of Biden-era vehicle mandates that many Republicans argue overstep legal boundaries and restrict consumer choice. Republican leaders have welcomed the announcement. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) praised Zeldin’s leadership, calling the repeal “a long-overdue correction to years of regulatory abuse,” and emphasizing that the Clean Air Act has been misused by Democrat administrations to impose costly, top-down climate mandates that threaten energy affordability, reliability, and national security.

Democrats and environmental groups, meanwhile, have condemned the repeal, signaling likely legal challenges and a potential revisiting of the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which set the stage for the original endangerment finding. Still, the Trump administration remains committed to reining in overregulation and restoring commonsense environmental policy that supports American industry, jobs, and energy independence.

EPA Sued Over Delay of Biden-Era Methane Rules Amid Climate Concerns

A coalition of environmental and health advocacy groups filed a lawsuit on August 1 against the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin, challenging the agency’s decision to delay compliance deadlines tied to the Biden-era 2024 methane regulations. These rules, finalized in the previous administration, imposed strict and costly emission mandates on both new and existing oil and gas operations. In March, the EPA—under President Trump’s directive to streamline federal regulations—announced an 18-month compliance delay to allow for more realistic implementation timelines and to provide states and energy producers the flexibility needed to adapt.

The Environmental Defense Fund, a longtime proponent of aggressive climate regulation, is leading the legal challenge, claiming the delay endangers public health and weakens environmental protections. However, the EPA has defended its decision as a common-sense adjustment that balances environmental objectives with the practical needs of industry and energy-producing states. According to the agency’s own July 28 fact sheet, the temporary delay may result in increased emissions, but it is part of a broader effort to ensure that future rules are workable, science-based, and do not impose unnecessary burdens on American energy producers. The delay took effect on July 31 and is open for public comment through September 2, with additional deregulatory measures expected in the coming months as the administration continues its push for energy independence and regulatory efficiency.

White House Begins Review of Administration’s TSCA Overhaul

The Trump administration’s EPA has submitted a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to replace the Biden-era “framework” rule that governs how existing chemicals are evaluated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The submission, made on August 4, comes shortly after the agency informed a federal court that it was nearing the release of its revised rule, which will serve as the procedural foundation for all TSCA chemical evaluations. This action follows EPA’s earlier commitment to “reconsider in its entirety” the Biden administration’s May 2024 rule, which had replaced a 2017 framework established during Trump’s first term. The revised proposal is expected to address litigation-related issues and broader changes, reflecting Trump EPA priorities while incorporating areas the 2017 rule previously left unaddressed. If finalized, the rule could significantly reshape TSCA implementation and preempt potential court decisions related to ongoing litigation.

Trump Nominates ACI Executive Douglas Troutman to Lead EPA Chemicals Office

President Donald Trump nominated Douglas Troutman, the acting CEO and general counsel of the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), to serve as the next Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which oversees the implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and federal pesticide regulations. Troutman brings nearly two decades of experience in industry advocacy, having worked at ACI since 2007. He played a key role in shaping the 2016 bipartisan overhaul of TSCA signed into law by President Barack Obama and has advocated for policies balancing industry interests and regulatory transparency, including ingredient labeling laws in California.

If confirmed, Troutman would take the helm of a program facing several challenges, including delays in reviewing new chemical applications, risk evaluations of existing substances, and litigation over prior regulatory actions.

Trump Administration Shutters EPA Science Arm

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will eliminate its Office of Research and Development (ORD) and reduce its workforce by over 3,700 positions—nearly 23% of the agency’s staff. The ORD, historically considered the EPA’s scientific backbone, will be replaced by a newly formed Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which the agency claims will improve its ability to deliver on core environmental and health missions. Administrator Lee Zeldin stated the changes are intended to enhance efficiency and align with President Donald Trump’s broader plan to downsize the federal workforce, made possible by a recent Supreme Court ruling. The restructuring is expected to save approximately $750 million, though critics argue the cost will be far greater in terms of lost expertise and diminished public health protections.

Bipartisan SPEED Act Proposes Major Overhaul to NEPA Permitting Process

House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced a bipartisan bill aimed at streamlining the federal permitting process. Titled the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, the legislation proposes reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which the sponsors argue has become overly burdensome and costly, contributing to significant delays in project approvals.

The SPEED Act seeks to shorten permitting timelines and curb what the sponsors describe as frivolous litigation by simplifying NEPA analysis requirements. It also introduces new judicial review limitations, including a 150-day deadline for filing legal challenges, a revised standard of review, and restrictions on procedural tactics that can stall project development.

New Bills Introduced to Examine Health Effects of Plastics Exposure

A bipartisan group of lawmakers from Oregon and Florida introduced the Microplastics Safety Act (H.R. 4486, S. 2353), a bill requiring the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to study the health effects of microplastics and report findings to Congress within a year. Spearheaded by Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-OR), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, and Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), the legislation responds to research showing a 50% increase in brain microplastic content over the past decade. The bill instructs HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to identify key sources of exposure and examine microplastics’ potential links to cancer, hormonal disruption, reproductive health issues, chronic illness, and dementia.  Despite political headwinds, sponsors see the bill as a practical and unifying step toward protecting human and environmental health.

Meanwhile, Reps. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Frank Lucas (R-OK) introduced the bipartisan Plastic Health Research Act, which aims to launch a comprehensive federal research into the health impacts of plastic exposure, particularly microplastics and nanoplastics. The bill also directs the Secretary Kennedy to coordinate research efforts across agencies and establish two key programs: one offering grants to public and academic institutions and another creating Centers of Excellence at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to serve as national hubs for plastics-related health research.

The bill has drawn support from industry players such as BASF and Dow, who agree that more high-quality, coordinated research is urgently needed to guide policy.   Dave Parrillo, Vice President of Research and Development at Dow Inc., highlighted the need for additional research and interagency coordination to understand microplastics better. He noted that while current FDA findings do not show that microplastics in food pose a health risk, more high-quality, standardized scientific research is essential to ensure food safety and enable evidence-based policymaking.

House Democrats Back States’ Lawsuit Against Trump’s EPA Funding Freeze

Nearly two-thirds of House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other senior members, have filed an amicus brief opposing President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in wasteful federal spending. The 139 Democrats argue that the administration’s decision to pause certain disbursements under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) infringes on congressional authority, despite the executive branch’s well-established responsibility to ensure that federal funds are administered in line with national priorities and fiscal accountability. The brief, filed in State of New York, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., claims that a newly elected president cannot pause or redirect spending, even when it reflects a shift in policy mandated by voters.

The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s January executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which halted funding for numerous environmental programs rooted in the IRA—many of which Republicans have long criticized as wasteful or ideologically driven. While the EPA has resumed select IIJA grants aligned with infrastructure goals, the administration is moving forward with plans to cancel a broader tranche of IRA climate-related spending. Though a lower court temporarily blocked the funding freeze for 22 states and the District of Columbia, the case now moves to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations exercise their authority to review and redirect spending priorities in alignment with national interests and energy independence.

Executive Order Imposes Reciprocal Tariffs  

President Donald Trump has finalized his long-anticipated “reciprocal” tariff regime, issuing an executive order, “Further Modifying the Reciprocal Tariff Rates,” that imposes steep tariff rates on imports from countries deemed to have unfair trade practices or insufficient alignment with U.S. national and economic security priorities. The new tariffs are scheduled to go into effect on August 7 and include a list of duties that go as high as 41 percent for certain countries. The U.S. and China are proceeding with negotiations separately. The administration has indicated that countries nearing trade or security commitments may see revised treatment in future executive orders.

In his order, President Trump cited the lack of reciprocity in global trade, the erosion of U.S. manufacturing, and threats to critical supply chains as justifications for these measures. The new tariff structure follows the declaration of a national emergency on April 2 under Executive Order 14257, which was temporarily paused for 90 days to allow negotiations. According to the administration, some nations have either reached or are nearing agreements with the U.S. to address these concerns. Countries that have engaged in negotiations but failed to satisfy U.S. conditions will face full tariff enforcement, while those completely unresponsive are subject to even stricter measures.

Mexico has been granted an additional 90-day reprieve from any new tariffs. President Trump stated that this extension followed a call with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and reflects the unique challenges posed by the U.S.-Mexico border. While Mexico remains subject to existing fentanyl-related and Section 232 tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum, and copper, USMCA-covered products remain exempt.

In contrast, Canada has been hit with a tariff increase from 25 percent to 35 percent, effective immediately. The White House cited Canada’s alleged failure to cooperate in combating fentanyl trafficking and its retaliation against U.S. trade actions. An even higher 40 percent tariff will apply to goods transshipped to evade the 35 percent rate. As with Mexico, Canadian goods covered by the USMCA remain unaffected.

The executive order also outlines new reciprocal tariff rates for a number of other countries, some of which reflect existing or pending trade deals, while others do not. Notably, Brazil’s listed rate is in addition to a separate 40 percent national security-related tariff.  Countries not explicitly listed will be subject to a baseline 10 percent global reciprocal tariff.

Courts Challenge Trump’s Use of Emergency Law for Tariffs, Alternative Paths Outlined

On the same day President Donald Trump issued a bold new round of reciprocal tariffs to counter long-standing trade imbalances, legal scrutiny intensified over his administration’s use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A panel of 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs without explicit Congressional action, since the statute does not directly reference tariffs. Plaintiffs in the case argued this amounted to an overreach of executive authority, though the Justice Department defended the administration’s position, citing IEEPA’s mandate to “regulate imports” during national emergencies—including the power to impose tariffs or even block imports entirely when necessary to protect U.S. interests.

The Trump administration has maintained that IEEPA provides a lawful and effective means to respond to foreign threats and unfair trade practices, especially when rapid executive action is needed. While some judges questioned the extent of executive discretion, the administration emphasized that certain emergency determinations fall squarely within the president’s constitutional duties and cannot be second-guessed by the courts. This view aligns with longstanding judicial precedent, which has repeatedly upheld the use of presidential authority in matters of trade and national security. Federal courts have consistently deferred to presidential judgments under trade statutes like Sections 301 and 232, provided there is no clear misreading of the law.

Despite legal challenges, President Trump retains multiple statutory tools to pursue his America First trade agenda. Congress has previously delegated substantial trade authority to the executive branch, including at least five alternative mechanisms to impose tariffs. These other pathways, however, often require lengthy procedural steps such as public comment periods or investigative findings. IEEPA, by contrast, allows for swift, decisive action—free from bureaucratic delays—making it the most efficient tool to defend American workers, industries, and national security. The administration’s use of IEEPA reflects a strategic effort to correct trade abuses and reassert U.S. sovereignty over its economic policies.