Within the United States in recent years, several contradictory environmental decisions have been executed as states have advocated for more sustainable legislation, while the federal government and private corporations have seemingly reverted to fossil fuel energy sources and adjacent supportive policy. We as a country are too familiar with President Trump’s constant reference to "beautiful clean coal,” a phrase reminiscent of outdated 1960s environmental policy, when coal was thought to be a cleaner energy source than we’ve come to know today [1]. Such a message from the federal government contrasts starkly with the environmental progress being completed on the state level. We are set to see the LA 28 Olympic Games be the world's first no-build Olympic Games completely supported by renewable energy sources, and the state of New York’s plans to build an offshore wind project remain steadily underway [2, 3]. All these state-level environmental infrastructure projects have continued to occur while the Trump administration has initiated an invigoration of the US coal industry, a sector generally known to cause great environmental harm. As state and federal sustainability laws and practices continue to clash, the US federal government and dissenting states will begin to appear separately at international climate forums, and states will begin to outright refuse to comply with federal plans that they feel compete with their state's environmental interests. This refusal may look like public dissent as states voice their disapproval of new sources, as well as a specific refusal to comply with federal mandates in the environmental sector. 

The Pre-Trump Era of Federal Environmental Policy

Prior to Trump’s election as President, the federal government had a host of regulatory policies in place to ensure climate change mitigation and reduction of harmful environmental impacts, while ensuring that environmental justice programs were carried out to protect minority communities. One relevant environmental decision came in the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which granted the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and restrict air pollutants in an effort to reduce air pollution and ensure safe air for generations to come [4].

The US during this time was also a member of several international and domestic agreements related to the implementation of environmental standards for government operations and private companies alike. These international agreements held the US accountable in its implementation of environmental policy, such as the Clean Air Act, in order to create a healthier, more sustainable country. The Paris Agreement was a notable environmental treaty signed by most countries aimed at fighting global warming through the provision of reduction goals that each country pledged to at least attempt to meet. The US was originally a member of the agreement, but Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement definitively during his second term in January of 2025 [5]. Trump's executive order in January of 2025, which definitively removed the US from the Paris agreement in addition to a number of other environmental agreements, effectively repealed nearly all environmental protections for communities of color, repealed greenhouse gas emission limits, and de-regulated many energy producing sectors, most notably the fossil fuel industry, under the guise of increasing domestic energy production [6].

Historical State-Level Environmental Policy

States, historically, have often differed from the federal government's environmental policy, meaning that while recent differences have widened the policy gap, they by no means created it. At the state level, several states have consistently engaged in sustainable legislation and regulation regardless of federal administration. Twenty-four states have adopted specific greenhouse gas reduction targets, invested in electric public transportation, and expanded infrastructure for clean energy production across their states [7].

Local governments have also implemented carbon-neutral ports across the country, with many more seeking to join them in the coming years. Virginia leads the pack in this regard, as it claims the title of the first major US port to use “100 percent clean electricity,” but local California ports may soon become entirely electric-powered as well [8]. Ports up and down the state, including local ports such as the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles, received millions of dollars to help them transform into zero-emissions operations. This bi-coastal transformation of the country’s port system, and thus trade system, was a result of the Biden Administration’s funding of such goals, and as such represent previous administration's fiscal support of states’ environmental progress [9]. Even traditionally conservative states have put in place programs to ensure that environmentally beneficial policy is appealing, as many states, including Georgia, Missouri, and Idaho, have ensured that lower and middle-income households within their state are able to see renewable energy as a financially viable and thus appealing choice [10]. Georgia specifically has 3 notable programs: Low-Income Energy Assistance, Weatherization Assistance, and Income-Qualified Community Solar by Georgia Power Utility Program. These examples establish a trend of states embracing sustainable environmental policy, representing precisely why the schism with the federal government in the Trump era is particularly concerning, as the implication exists that such a schism may break out of the environmental sphere and into standard political order. 

Recent Controversial Federal Environmental Policy

What triggered this schism? In truth, this not-so-grand divide between the federal government and states in the realm of environmental policy has been brewing since before Trump even took office for the first time. Trump, in his first campaign for President, made environmental deregulation a central point in his agenda. He promised that one of his first moves as President would be to cut environmental regulations and allow for a “pay-to-play” style system in which companies could expedite and, to a degree, circumnavigate environmental review for a fee [11].

Trump has routinely advocated for increased US dependence on fossil fuels, particularly oil and coal. Under his presidency, the EPA has significantly weakened rules pertaining to emission caps for power plants, defunded research facilities devoted to the study of climate change, and even dropped regulations regarding the circulation of fine-particulate matter through the air [12]. Coupled with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s recent rule-making it easier for companies to apply to mine the deep-sea ocean floor, as the administration declared revisions to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act,  it is clear that Trump’s environmental policies favor corporate gain over environmental preservation of the American homeland [13]. The Trump era has been riddled with environmental legislation that feels as though the United States is taking multiple steps backward in the environmental regulation landscape, as current environmental knowledge and research are routinely sidestepped in favor of what is cheap, easy, and convenient for the same corporations that have continued to pollute our country, environmentally and otherwise, for generations.

States’ Defiant Response

Many states have assembled to fight the President’s environmental degradation more generally. Most recently, a 20-state coalition, all of which have a democratic majority within their population, has joined forces to fight Trump’s federal legislation that would hinder green energy development, by requesting that a federal judge block the legislation. On January 23, the coalition claimed the federal government's actions violated the state's sovereign interest in clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction, as the legislation makes the development of green energy sources much more difficult, sabotaging the state's personal actions to protect its natural environment [14]. This signifies the fact that states are not willing to idly stand by as Trump destroys the nation's environmental resources and jeopardizes the country's future in the face of the looming threat of climate change.

States decided enough is enough: no longer will the federal government’s regressive policies be allowed to taint the natural world states have so carefully curated within their own borders. Several states have formally advocated against Trump's environmentally harmful policy. The governors of California, Oregon, and Washington have filed formal opposition to President Trump's plan to allow new offshore oil and gas drilling along the West Coast—a move which would seriously harm the coastline's marine ecosystems [15]. In a joint comment letter to the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the governors expressed a common sentiment: Trump and his environmental policies must be stopped. California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot put it best when describing the climax of the state's frustration with the federal government in this realm, as he stressed that, “Over the last four decades, California leaders have expressed consistent, united opposition to any new offshore oil and gas activities.” This climax in frustration over the federal government's policy may have opened the floodgates to what could be a much deeper schism between the federal and state governments, as states now consider at what political cost they may be willing to take to separate from the federal government in the legislative realm.

States’ Historical Differences in Comparison to Federal Policy

Any state breakaway from the federal government should not come as a complete shock to citizens, as within the United States, individual states have found themselves operating as independent bodies for years, specifically in the realm of sustainability and environmental policy. California, since 2006 acted as a separate political partner in the realm of global politics, having attended climate conferences as a separate delegation, differentiating the progressive environmental policies embraced by the state and its West Coast partners from the outdated policies of the Trump administration [16, 17]. Several countries, including Kenya and Brazil, also have climate cooperation agreements with California exclusively, rather than making these agreements with the whole of the United States [18] [19]. States can be independent of the federal government in terms of sustainability goals and agreements, and moreover, perhaps they should be. California, as a case study, shows that independent state environmental policy can have beneficial effects, as the state routinely adjusts infrastructure to attempt to meet climate goals, and in the process, is held accountable by international partners in a uniquely specific vested interest. It is likely that should the Trump administration's repealing of federal environmental guidelines continue, several other states may follow suit and be welcomed by the rest of the world as partners against the federal government's disregard for planetary health.

Implications for the Future: A Widening Federal-State Divide

As the difference in state and federal government's approach to environmental policy grows, it is likely that we could see not only further forays of other states into the realm of international climate agreements, but we could also see further legal confrontation with the federal government on topics of sustainability. States, observing pre-Trump era behavior, have embraced environmental policy that works best for their state and its specific clean energy and preservation needs, implementing their own infrastructure projects to both meet and often exceed federal recommendations in terms of environmental regulations. Even in environmentally favorable administrations, such as during the Obama administration, states have operated independently in the realm of sustainable policy to meet their personal goals. During the Obama administration, oil imports decreased significantly; meanwhile, sustainable energy production increased, resulting in a net nine percent decrease in carbon emissions [20]. In contrast, the Trump administration, in enacting environmentally harmful and widely criticized policies, should expect that states’ independent operation increases as more and more states meet their threshold in terms of tolerance for the administration's blatant disregard for environmental conservation. Whether this looks like more states filing legal action against the administration, engaging in international diplomacy independent of the US, or merely continuing to create their own infrastructure and legislation, President Trump's administration should expect public push back, as it can be expected that voters across the country will not stand for the intentional degradation of the natural resources that make their states home. 

Examples of states pushing back against federal policy can already be seen in the West Coast Governors’ alliance in filing formal comments against offshore drilling plans, as well as the 20-state coalition's formal lawsuit against federal agencies as a result of the federal government's blocking of renewable energy projects [15][14]. As such, the President should expect public scrutiny as he continues to roll out new environmental policy, but also, the Republican party as a whole can be expected to gain awareness that, should they wish to place another Republican candidate in office, damage control of sorts must be initiated. Corrective efforts could include reinstating governmental regulations and federal environmental agencies, lest the schism between the federal government and state governments continue to widen in such an era of environmental concern. 

Moreover, states have had success before in countering federal environmental policy, as seen in Massachusetts v. EPA, where the state successfully won a lawsuit requiring that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions [21]. This means that the federal government should take states' opposition as a valid legal threat, as states have successfully countered federal environmental policy, and there is existing precedent in place to help support states in their legal confrontation. 

With this in mind, it is also worth mentioning the additional implication that, as the divide between state governments and the federal government grows, so too may the divide between other states. As nearly all examples of legal action against the Trump administration’s economic policies have come from coalitions of Democratic majority states, Republican majority states have either decided to align themselves with the President, or are unwilling to directly confront federal authority on the matter [15][14]. As the Republican Party has in recent years pushed environmental considerations to the side, particularly in favor of policy promising economic stimuli, this is largely unsurprising. As Republican states continue to uphold this past precedent in ideological behavior, it is likely that the President may be supported by states in the environmental realm, which in turn promises to further divide states along the party lines that dominate their political landscapes. While it is unlikely that during this current administration we will see any federal encouragement towards Republican dominated states beginning to place a higher priority on climate change mitigation, should successive administrations seek to incentivize this turn among states, and help close the blue-red divide in the realm of environmental policy, there are several options. Future administrations may provide federal monetary support to states that put forth environmental management plans that can be deemed sustainable, providing resources and funding for renewable energy projects within various states, or other aid in making the creation of environmentally sustainable infrastructure more financially appealing.