PhilipTheBucket

From Robert Hubbell's Substack

---

We have a lot of ground to cover in this edition of the newsletter, but I want to highlight a discussion in the latter half of the newsletter. On Tuesday, I received a constant stream of panicked emails from readers forwarding stories (mainly circulating on Facebook) claiming Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act on April 20, 2025. Facebook’s fear-promoting algorithm was working overtime on Tuesday, suggesting that we are two weeks away from martial law. We are not.

The stories forwarded by readers initially focus on a kernel of truth—i.e., that Trump intends to invoke the Insurrection Act to assist with immigration enforcement at the Southern border--but then quickly pivot to speculations about what Trump “might” do. The articles assume that “the military” will violate the Constitution by obeying a hypothetical order to use force against American citizens. As explained below, we have more reason to trust the professionalism, patriotism, and loyalty to the Constitution of the US military than that of Donald Trump.

I expect that apocalyptic stories about the invocation of the Insurrection Act on April 20 will gain traction over the next two weeks. Please don’t become an unwitting instrument of fear and misinformation that may serve Trump's purposes

Yes, we must stand guard and be alert to potential abuse of the Insurrection Act.

We must be prepared to use all means possible to prevent abuse of the Insurrection Act by Trump.

But to suggest that we will soon be under military rule is fearmongering that undermines confidence in our democracy and is offensive to the professional and loyal men and women of the US military.

But most of all, do not let fear-based algorithms shake your faith in America. We are bigger than Trump and will outlast him by centuries, long after Mark Zuckerberg has spent all the click-bait money he earned on Tuesday by frightening Facebook users. Don’t be Mark Zuckerberg’s victim. We control our destiny. If you don’t believe that proposition with all your heart and soul, we are lost.

We are not potted plants. We are not sheep. We cannot recoil in fear because someone speculates about what Trump “might” do. What Trump “might” do is determined in large part by what we do to resist Trump. Be part of the solution by acting boldly and bravely in the face of understandable fear and anxiety.

Trump tariffs go into effect Wednesday; market chaos continues

Traders attempted a rally on Tuesday, but Trump caused more chaos by announcing additional tariffs on China—increasing the rate to 104% of the value of the imported goods. As a result, the markets suffered significant declines for a fourth straight day. More ominously—and predictably—they moved the world toward a trade war. See Reuters, Trump's latest tariffs loom, set to deepen global trade war.

Although Republican Senators are mumbling about opposing the tariffs, they are still searching for their backbones. (Hint: Put your hands on your butt, then move your hands up about 12 inches. If you feel something hard in the middle of your back, that is known as a “backbone.” If you need instructions on how to use it, read the emails and listen to the phone calls from your constituents.)

Trump plans to humiliate BigLaw firms who capitulated to his demands

The BigLaw firms that surrendered to Trump are about to learn that doing so only encourages Trump to come back for more. On Tuesday, Trump suggested that he would ask those law firms (Skadden, Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, and Willkie Farr) to devote their “pro bono” hours to defending his tariffs and helping coal companies with lease negotiations—for free. See Trump Says He'll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, Tariffs.

In a meeting with coal producers, Trump said,

We’re going to use some of those firms to work with you on your leasing and other things. We’re going to use them and we’re getting them for the right price because we need a lot of talent. We have a lot of countries coming in to make deals [on tariffs].

Interestingly, representing coal producers and the US government in trade negotiations are not considered as pro bono engagements under the ABA definition. See ABA Model Rule 6.1.

The super-smart, all-powerful leaders of the nation’s most prestigious firms didn’t think things through before surrendering to Trump. That’s what happens when maximizing profits above all else clouds your thinking.

Turmoil at the Internal Revenue Service

It seems as though Trump wants to undermine the ability of the IRS to collect taxes and enforce compliance with US tax laws. On Tuesday, reports emerged that Trump is going to shutter the DOJ Tax Division—which brings civil and criminal actions to enforce compliance with the tax code. See Talking Points Memo, DOGE to Shutter DOJ Tax Division.

Although Trump and Musk may be unclear on the concept, collecting tax revenue is essential to creating and maintaining the infrastructure that imparts value to their businesses. A thriving economy needs highways, bridges, airports and air traffic control, utility regulations, safety regulations that give consumers confidence in products, courts to adjudicate disputes, and schools to educate a workforce.

If the IRS can’t collect money (because it has no enforcement authority), it raises the obvious question, “Why would anyone pay their taxes if no one is going to do anything about non-payment?”

One answer to that question is that the IRS can place levies on your bank accounts and wages if it believes you aren’t paying the amounts owed. But the IRS is terminating 25% of its workforce.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that people avoid paying their taxes. I am saying that Trump hasn’t thought through the implications of doing away with the DOJ’s Tax Division and cutting 25% of the IRS workforce.

The one function that Trump and DOGE want to use the IRS for is likely illegal. Trump is seeking to force the IRS to confirm information about the location of immigrants who pay taxes but are not legally residing in the US. Estimates suggest that immigrants who do not have legal US residency pay $100 billion per years in federal and state taxes. See Tax Policy Center, Yes, Undocumented Immigrants Pay Taxes—and Receive Few Tax Benefits.

Having the IRS share information from tax returns so that ICE can apprehend immigrants not legally in the US is a disincentive to them to pay federal taxes. It is also illegal for the IRS to share taxpayer information for any purpose other than collecting or enforcing tax obligations.

How illegal is it for the IRS to share taxpayer information? Well, on Tuesday evening, the acting Director of the IRS resigned in protest over a demand by DOGE to give ICE access to residence information about immigrants who do not have legal residence in the US. See AP, IRS acting commissioner is resigning over deal to send immigrants’ tax data to ICE, AP sources say.

An internal IRS estimate suggests that the cutbacks and turmoil caused by DOGE will result in a $500 billion revenue shortfall by April 15, 2025. See Economic Times, Half a trillion vanished? IRS bombshell as agency warns DOGE may have cost U.S. a shocking $500 billion; here's the full detail.

Legal developments

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstate access to the Associated Press at White House events where other major press outlets are allowed to attend. See Politico, Trump must reinstate Associated Press to White House press pool, judge rules.

The Supreme Court ruled that some plaintiffs in a suit to reinstate 60,000 federal workers do not have standing to bring the claims. The Supreme Court lifted a lower court order to reinstate the workers and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. See AP News, Supreme Court blocks order requiring Trump administration to reinstate workers.

As explained by Jacob Knutson in Democracy Docket,

The Supreme Court said its stay only addressed the claims brought by the nonprofit organizations, meaning the claims brought by unions in the case were not affected.

Other court orders requiring the Trump administration to reinstate fired federal workers remain in effect.

See Democracy Docket, Supreme Court Pauses Order Requiring Trump to Reinstate Thousands of Federal Workers.

Trump targets Cornell and Northwestern

Trump is freezing billions in grants to two more universities over their previous efforts to promote diversity and over alleged failures to address antisemitism on their campuses.

See NYTimes, Trump Administration Freezes $1 Billion for Cornell and $790 Million for Northwestern, Officials Say.

A spokesperson for Cornell said, that the affected grants “supported research that they described as ‘profoundly significant to American defense, cybersecurity and health.’”

To make the obvious point, canceling grants made pursuant to a congressional appropriation violates Article I of the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Such unilateral cuts are illegal and unconstitutional. It is reprehensible that the Republican-controlled Congress will do nothing to address this massive, ongoing assault on constitutional order.

Stories about Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act causes panic among readers

As noted above, I was deluged with emails from readers asking me to comment on a handful of stories that raised the possibility that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act on April 20, 2025, and would thereafter use the US military to suppress peaceful protests and arrest American citizens. (I heard from another Substack author who said they were also being deluged with such emails.)

Before I address the issue, let me say that we should take seriously the notion that Trump may invoke and abuse his authority under the Insurrection Act. But that does not mean that we must engage in or accept as pre-ordained truth that Trump will use the Act to establish a military dictatorship in the US.

“Yes,” we must take Trump seriously, and “No” we must not engage in catastrophism that will only serve to frighten and demotivate people who should be busy defending democracy.

I will not link to any of the stories because I do not want to give them further circulation. In short, the articles generally start with the fact that Trump may invoke the Insurrection Act (he will) and then engage in speculation about what “might” happen next, culminating with Trump declaring martial law to round up “leftists” from their homes.

One of the articles describes a “tabletop exercise” designed as a thought experiment to determine what legal strategies could be used to stop Trump from abusing the Insurrection Act. The thought experiment did not account for the likelihood of events occurring—and the author did not suggest those events would happen. But it appeared that many readers assumed that the tabletop exercise was a prediction of what would happen.

[I will note that the above article is well-intentioned and includes sound advice for de-escalating and avoiding provocation. Except for the description of the tabletop exercise, it is otherwise a helpful article. But the description of the tabletop exercise is what set people off.]

A second article seems to adopt conspiracy thinking, positing a massive “false flag” operation involving fake terrorist bombings and staged assassinations as an excuse for imposing martial law. The author also posits that Trump will call on “good Americans” to take up arms against other Americans to help impose martial law.

The readers who forwarded the articles seemed to disregard the limited scope and authority of the Insurrection Act. For a sober and even-handed description that does not include the distracting speculation, see Joseph Nunn, The Insurrection Act Explained | Brennan Center for Justice.

As Nunn explains,

The Insurrection Act does not authorize martial law. The term “martial law” has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency. By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law.

A key concept is that the use of the military under the Insurrection Act is designed to assist civil law enforcement in restoring order. The Insurrection Act DOES NOT authorize the president to impose “martial law.”

But as Nunn also explains, several provisions of the Insurrection Act are vague, and Trump could exploit that vagueness to expand use of the Insurrection Act beyond its intended purpose. Fair point—which brings us to the second flaw in the reaction to the articles.

The panicked emails from readers presumed that Trump would call upon the military to use force against American citizens and that the members of the military would willingly obey. I do not believe they will.

The US military is composed of men and women who are younger, more diverse, less affluent, and more aspirational than the average American. They are in the military to get a jump start on a productive life and to build a future for themselves and their families.

We must not fetishize the military. It is not a dark, evil force poised to spring against the American public. Nearly half of enlisted personnel are in the National Guard—meaning that during the week, they are the checkers at your grocery store, the men and women who teach your kids, your tax accountants, and the workers repairing your roads. They are your neighbors and friends. They are American citizens. Their average age is 28, and more than half of them are married with children or are single parents with children.

Most importantly, they are professional and loyal to the Constitution. You should have more confidence that they will follow the Constitution than Trump. Indeed, if Trump ordered the military to turn on the American people, the general officers know that their ranks would be decimated by mass desertions by decent Americans who will not turn on other decent Americans. An order to turn against the American people would effectively disband the military as an effective fighting force.

All of the imagined fears about the Insurrection Act are based on a groundless assumption that disregards the loyalty and professionalism of the military. Yes, Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act to assist with immigration enforcement at the Southern border. No, the military is not going to act as Trump's personal army. Set that fear aside,

Some readers might challenge my beliefs, saying that the military includes white supremacists and neo-Nazis who would do Trump's bidding. That is certainly true. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a perfect example of unquestioning loyalty to Trump based on white nationalism.

But Hegseth is also a perfect example for another reason: When his unit was deployed to Washington after January 6, his officers told him to stay home. Why? Because they understood that he was an outlier, a soldier who could not be trusted to follow the law and the Constitution. True, there are other “Pete Hegseths” in the military—just as there are in the civilian population at large.

In short, the military is us. It is an all-volunteer force that represents America with all of its strengths and weaknesses. But it is not a menacing force of “others” who will attack their friends and neighbors, parents and children, colleagues and fellow citizens.

Once you remove the flawed assumption that the military will transform itself into Trump's private paramilitary force, it is clear that the invocation of the Insurrection Act will be a limited, legally contested, ineffective, wasteful show of force at the border to distract from the fact that Trump is destroying our economy and government infrastructure.

I understand that many readers will disagree with my assessment. Many still have living memories of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the Jim Crow south. I respect those feelings. If that is how you feel, the question is, “What is the best way to prevent it from happening again?”

It is not to amplify articles that include speculations about false flag operations, staged terrorist attacks, and roving militias of amateur extremists who magically adopt military discipline and battlefield tactics when deputized by Trump.

The best option is to become (or remain) active in the largest civil resistance movement in the last 75 years to help ensure that the few guardrails around Trump prevent him from even attempting to abuse the Insurrection Act.

I hope you will choose the option of resistance and action over amplifying articles that may help to normalize the notion that Trump can and will abuse the Insurrection Act. We must be realistic and alert, but we must also keep calm and carry on.

Concluding Thoughts.

Thanks for listening. Stay strong, and do not surrender to imagined fears. We need you for the real fight!

Talk to you tomorrow!

Daily Dose of Perspective

At any moment, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man whom the Trump administration admits itdeported to a notorious Salvadoran mega prison due to “administrative error.” The ruling could pose a make or break moment, not just for the life of Abrego Garcia, but for what kind of country we are going to be.

Less than three months into Trump’s second term, the stakes of litigation over its agenda are extremely high. If the Supreme Court requires the US government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s rapid return to US soil, it will have held the line by requiring that the rule of law governs Trump’s deportation powers. But if the court halts Abrego Garcia’s return, the United States is on track toenter a dark new chapter in which anyone—noncitizens and citizens alike—can be shipped off to foreign prisons with no hope of return. These are the tools of control exercised by authoritarian regimes on other continents. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen here.

“The government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend…there is nothing that can be done.”

Abrego Garcia is an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador. In 2019, the government attempted to deport him and claimed, on very weak grounds, that he was a member of the MS-13 gang. On appeal, an immigration judge found that he faced “a clear probability of future persecution” if returned to El Salvador. The judge ordered that Abrego Garcia not be removed to El Salvador. The government never appealed. Abrego Garcia is married, raising three children, gainfully employed, and has never had a run-in with the law.

When the Department of Homeland Security picked him up in March and put him on a plane to El Salvador, it did so against the immigration judge’s clear order. The government itself concedes his removal was an “administrative error.” Yet, the government does not want to retrieve him and is fighting a judge’s order to bring him back. Instead, it argues that even if removed in error, the courts have no authority to facilitate a prisoner’s return from abroad. What’s done is done, Trump administration lawyers argue: once you arrive at El Salvador’s brutal labor camp, it’s as if the US government has thrown away the key.

If the Supreme Court accepts the government’s argument, it would destroy Abrego Garcia’s life. But under its logic, untold numbers of other noncitizens and citizens are in jeopardy of permanent and unlawful disappearance. It wouldn’t matter who you are. If the government scoops you off the street and ships you off to another country without providing a chance to make your case in court, there is nothing you, your family, or a judge could do. The president’s power over national security and foreign affairs, the government argues, cannot be impinged, even if it violated an individual’s constitutional rights to deport them. But this logic leads to a license for Trump to disappear anyone, possibly forever.

Constitutional law luminaries Erwin Chemerinsky, Martha Minow, and Laurence Tribe stress the gravity of this case in an amicus brief they submitted to the Supreme Court. If the administration’s argument prevails, they warn, “the Executive Branch would possess a shuddering degree of power—power that the President could wield in extreme and extraordinary ways, including against American citizens that the President simply disfavors.”

A three judge panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rebuked the government’s arguments in a ruling that seized on the dystopian powers the government is seeking. “The facts of this case thus present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done,” Judge James Wilkinson warned in a concurrence. “It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.”

It’s no surprise that Wilkinson’s concurrence found its way into Abrego Garcia’s brief to the Supreme Court; In 2003, Wilkinson authored an opinion granting the federal government the power to indefinitely detain a US citizen without the opportunity to challenge their confinement in court if it designated him an “enemy combatant”—a decision overturned by the Supreme Court. If Wilkinson, a Reagan-appointee who has accorded the government extreme deference in the arena of national security and detention, can see that the Abrego Garcia case is a bridge to “perfect lawlessness,” then perhaps the Supreme Court will as well.

Abrego Garcia’s case was first filed in federal district court in Maryland, where a judge ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” The government appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Then, on April 7, before the circuit court had issued a decision, the government appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the highest court to immediately halt the lower court’s order so that the government wouldn’t have to retrieve Abrego Garcia that day. It also asked the high court to fully vacate the district court’s order. After this appeal was filed, the Fourth Circuit released its opinion siding with Abrego Garcia. As Stephanie Thacker, a judge on the appellate court, explained in that opinion, “The irreparable harm in this case is the harm being done to Abrego Garcia every minute he is in El Salvador.”

“It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness.”

But shortly after that opinion was issued, Chief Justice John Roberts halted the lower court’s order temporarily while the highest court decides whether to grant the administration’s request for a fuller rebuke of the lower court. It is this decision that will indicate whether or not there is a meaningful right to challenge detention before removal to a foreign country or whether that right can be overridden by an alleged “administrative error.”

In a separate ruling Tuesday over challenges to removals to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that every person transferred has the right to meaningfully challenge that removal in court. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers quickly filed a notice with the Supreme Court to remind them that Abrego Garcia had the same right to challenge his removal but was denied it—a constitutional violation that must be remedied. Thus, the Abrego Garcia case is an immediate test of the Supreme Court’s own ruling: Will the right to challenge removal in court be one that can be denied by administrative error—either a genuine error or an alleged one?

It’s important to realize administrative errors are not that uncommon in immigration enforcement. For example, a Government Accountability Office report found that between 2015 and 2020, ICE likely deported 70 US citizens. The government can and does retrieve people from foreign countries after unlawful removal. Moreover, there no reason to believe the Trump administration wouldn’t make the same argument about people it has deliberately removed.

One reason to worry is the government’s response when a federal judge ordered it to turn around the planes taking hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, on the basis that the detainees were not afforded the opportunity to challenge their removal. The government made the decision not to turn the planes around, but instead to continue on to El Salvador, unload the planes, and place the detainees in the care of a foreign country. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, a leader who himself employs authoritarian tactics and illegal confinement to maintain control, mocked the efforts to stop the planes. He posted an article on X about the order to turn the planes around and commented “Oopsie… Too Late” followed by the tears of joy emoji often used to gloat over the suffering of others. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, retweeted him. Dodging a court order wasn’t an error, it was a joke.

“We are not stopping,” border czar Tom Homan said on Fox News two days later. “I don’t care what the judges think.”

[Content truncated due to length...]

When Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, went looking for someone to head the National Counterterrorism Center, she landed on Joe Kent, a former Green Beret, past CIA officer, and twice-failed MAGA congressional candidate in Washington state, who, as the Associated Press reported, “stands out for the breadth of his ties to a deep-seated extremist fringe.” During his first campaign in 2022, Kent consulted with white nationalist Nick Fuentes on social-media strategy. He also had a member of the Proud Boys on his campaign staff, and he embraced as a supporter and ally Joey Gibson, the leader of Patriot Prayer, a Christian nationalist group.

But his associations with far-right extremists began prior to his attempt to win a congressional seat. In 2020, Kent helped boost the organizing message of a new right-wing paramilitary outfit that called itself the 1st Amendment Praetorian.

On September 20, 2020, Robert Patrick Lewis, a former Green Beret and QAnon supporter, posted a long thread on Twitter (now X) that announced the formation of the group. Lewis declared that a band of “military, law enforcement & intel community veterans” had come together to protect the First Amendment rights of conservatives. He presented a harsh, conspiratorial, and paranoid view, claiming, “There are Marxist & leftist politicians aiming to lock down total control over our populace.” He asserted, “Their tyrannical, Marxist subversive groups such as ANTIFA & BLM demand total subservience to and adulation of their specific view of the world.” And he maintained the “corrupted Main Stream Media does their best to tarnish the reputation and destroy the lives of any public or private citizen who dares step up to them or fight back against their narrative.”

Lewis called on “military, law enforcement or intelligence community” veterans to join 1AP and fight back. In an apparent sign of support, Kent reposted this thread.

Lewis noted that 1AP would be providing security services for right-wing rallies and marches, including those “with a large number of high-profile, conservative VIPs speaking & attending.” For one event, he said he needed veterans to provide “physical security, intelligence/surveillance and to serve as team leaders for small security & intelligence and intelligence cells.” He promised, “we will keep your names confidential and our personnel records & communications will be encrypted.” He added, “This group was formed to protect attendees at President Trump’s campaign rallies.”

Soon after forming 1Ap, Lewis presented it not only as a security service for the right but as an intelligence operation. He told Fox News, “Our intelligence shows that no matter who wins the election, they [Antifa] are planning a massive ‘Antifa Tet Offensive,’ bent on destroying the global order they are not beholden to any one party. Their sole purpose is to create havoc, fear, and intimidation.” (No such uprising occurred.) After the election, 1AP claimed it was collecting evidence of fraud. On January 6, as the riot began at the Capitol, Lewis tweeted, “Today is the day the true battles begin.” (He later said he was at the Willard Hotel, not Capitol Hill, that day.)

Lewis’ 1AP did provide security at various events featuring far-right extremists. According to the final report of the House January 6 committee, during a December 12, 2020, rally of pro-Trump election deniers in Washington, DC, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, a right-wing, anti-government militia, “coordinated” with 1AP “to guard VIPs, including retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and Patrick Byrne.” (Both Flynn and Byrne were prominent promoters of the crackpot conspiracy theory holding that the 2020 election was stolen form Trump.) Months later, Lewis and 1AP provided security at a QAnon conference in Dallas, where Flynn essentially called for a military coup in the United States.

On social media, Kent has often boosted posts from Lewis. At one point each complimented the other for a podcast appearance. When Kent ran for Congress, Lewis expressed his support for him on social media. In a 2022 Telegram post, Lewis said that he knew Kent “personally” and “wish I could personally vote for him.” In January, 1AP posted on Telegram that there were “mumblings” that Kent could be appointed to lead the National Counterterrorism Center and that this “would be a very good thing. I could not support this more strongly.”

Mother Jones sent Kent, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center a list of questions about Kent’s support for 1AP and his relationship with Lewis. Neither Kent nor the agencies responded.

Kent has an established record as an extremist and promoter of conspiracy theories. During his 2022 run, he called for charging Dr. Anthony Fauci with murder to hold him “accountable” for the “scam that is Covid.” He promoted Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged against him. He backed the idea the January 6 riot was orchestrated by the Deep State to discredit Trump and his supporters. He referred to the J6 rioters as “political prisoners.” He pushed the notion that billionaire Bill Gates was seeking to “control the food supply” and “control housing” to force people to “live in the pod eat the bugs.”

Like Gabbard, Kent has no experience in leading a large intelligence organization. (After serving in the Army, he was a field operative for the CIA for a short time.) Both Kent and Gabbard were on the infamous Signalgate chat. As head of the NCTC, Kent will have the responsibility for monitoring and preventing both foreign and domestic terrorism. But his past as a conspiracy theorist and his association with far-right extremists raise questions about his analytical abilities and his capacity to assess threats of domestic terrorism that arise from the right. His association with 1AP and Lewis is just one more reason to wonder about his judgment.

As President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders Tuesday aimed at keeping coal power alive in the United States, he repeatedly blamed his predecessor, Democrats, and environmental regulations for the industry’s dramatic contraction over the past two decades.

But across the country, state and local officials and electric grid operators have been confronting a factor in coal’s demise that is not easily addressed with the stroke of a pen: its cost.

For example, Maryland’s only remaining coal generating station, Talen Energy’s 1.3-gigawatt Brandon Shores plant, will be staying open beyond its previously planned June 1 shutdown, under a deal that regional grid operator PJM brokered earlier this year with the company, state officials, and the Sierra Club.

Read full article

Comments

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at “protecting” American energy from “state overreach.” The move, some energy experts say, is a legally dubious federal overstep designed to undermine the rights of states and local authorities to combat climate change.

The order claims “many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.”

It specifically points to Blue-state policies like Vermont’s Superfund rules, which require fossil fuel companies to pay for damage to the climate, and California’s cap-and-trade program as examples of efforts to “dictate national energy policy.” In Section 2 of the order, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify state laws or policies “burdening” access to “domestic energy resources that “are or may be…unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

What might some of those state laws be? According to the executive order, that could include any effort to address “climate change,” support “environmental justice,” or reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, among others.

That’s not the end of it. The order also directs the attorney general to “expeditiously” take action to “stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions” determined to be illegal.

It’s unclear whether this will stand up in court. Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told E&E News that the executive order is “toothless” and that Trump “has no authority on his own to nullify state laws.” Journalist David Roberts, who runs the clean energy newsletter Volts called the order on Bluesky, “wildly, unambiguously unconstitutional” and “dictator shit.”

Others on social media noted the president’s contradiction of traditionally conservative values. As climate reporter and Drilled podcast host Amy Westervelt put it on Bluesky, “States rights! But only when the states agree with us[.]”Climate scientist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributing author Zeke Hausfather posted, “So much for federalism…” And Tulane environmental studies professor Joshua Basseches wrote, “Federal overreach has historically been a crusade of the Right, but these times are wild and different.”

This new White House executive order says that the US Attorney General is going to prevent states from implementing democratically passed laws regarding climate change and clean energy. It scarcely needs stating at this point that this is wildly, unambiguously unconstitutional. Dictator shit.

— David Roberts (@volts.wtf) 2025-04-09T05:42:55.516Z