By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
The shutdown of the federal government is not having much of an impact on environmental policy since the EPA was already disintegrating before the shutdown. Apart from the EPA’s deconstruction, the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA reduced Clean Water Act coverage to wetlands, but New York state then finalized wetlands regulations expanding state protection to about one million additional acres. In 2024, the Supreme Court reversed EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan regulating interstate air emissions, increasing New York’s air pollution since it is downwind of polluting states. Federal grant and loan programs for water pollution control and water supply infrastructure are also being cut. Grants for renewable energy projects are being rescinded, and wind projects that are nearly completed are being stalled. All of this is making pollution control more challenging in New York, and in states throughout this nation, but here in New York, both the state and city have increased their efforts in an attempt to replace federal environmental programs.
Closer to my home, while the federal government retreats, New York advances. New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Protection Act has led to greenhouse gas regulations promulgated by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is implementing a wide variety of programs designed to enhance energy efficiency and decarbonize the state’s economy. New York City’s landmark Local Law 97 gradually reduces greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, and the City’s Department of Buildings has begun to implement penalties for developers and landlords who do not comply with the law. The city is also gradually eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels in newly constructed buildings under Local Law 154.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has thus far resisted federal efforts to end congestion pricing, and while federal support for the Hudson rail tunnel and the 2nd Avenue Subway is under threat, billions of dollars in transportation capital funding are being generated by congestion fees. The city’s effort to increase parkland, reinforce coastlines, increase bike lanes, and implement a score of other sustainability programs marches on without federal support. The City’s Energy Efficiency Corporation, or “green bank,” continues its efforts to finance community-based energy efficiency and decarbonization efforts, even as expected federal funding has evaporated. To date, they have mobilized $810 million in capital investment.
The national government’s retreat from climate policy and environmental protection has harmed New York State and New York City’s initiatives, but the forces of federalism ensure that federal opposition cannot end these programs. The issue is far more devastating in states that do not have the wealth and commitment to environmental protection that we see in places like New York and California. Since ecosystems are interconnected in a global biosphere, there are limits to state, local, and even national efforts to protect the environment. The Trump administration’s resistance to environmental regulation is far from trivial and will result in more polluted air, water, and land. While I suspect the Project 2025 folks are smart enough to avoid an effort to directly repeal our landmark environmental laws of the 1970s and 1980s, they will continue to cut funding, revise regulations, and eliminate enforcement to reduce the impact of these laws nationally.
Fortunately, there are limits to anti-environmentalism. As objective conditions in the environment become worse, public opinion supporting environmental protection, which is always strong, will increase. We live in a culture where wellness, nutrition, physical fitness, and health are highly valued. Still, the Trump administration has demonstrated that it is less interested in overall public opinion than in maintaining the support of their political base. In our polarized political world, even though most people support environmental regulation, Republicans tend to oppose it. According to a piece in May 2025 by Rebecca Leppert of the Pew Research Center:
“Nationally, six-in-ten Americans say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, while 38% say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to a 2023-24 Pew Research Center survey of 36,908 U.S. adults. As with many climate and energy issues, opinions vary sharply by party. Most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents think these laws are worth the cost (82%), while Republicans and GOP leaners tend to say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (59%). Opinions also vary widely by state.”
One of the great difficulties we face when dealing with the Trump administration’s approach to environmental protection is its ideologically influenced view of scientific fact. While there can and should be debate on how to address greenhouse gas pollution and other forms of pollution, the President seems to maintain the belief that human-influenced climate change is a hoax. His administration’s opposition to renewable energy is based on misinformation about the costs and benefits of wind and solar energy. Facts that can be easily verified are often distorted to satisfy a policy agenda that is often based on the President’s whim. That is not limited to environmental protection. We saw that this past week, when the President described conditions in Portland and Chicago that simply did not exist. The President understands the value of a clean environment. As a career developer of buildings and golf resorts and a politician skilled at reading public opinion, he clearly understands and has frequently articulated the importance of a clean environment. But he has little understanding of the complexity of environmental science and the technological complexity of environmental protection. Moreover, his ideological opposition to business regulation ensures that his articulation of the importance of a clean environment is meaningless.
As long as the federal system remains intact over the next three years, it is likely that the locus of environmental protection policy will be at the state and local level. This means that in some places, progress on climate mitigation and adaptation and pollution reduction will continue, while in other places, it will not. While EPA’s demise is not helping state and local environmental agencies, even before Trump 2, Connor MacCartney and Julia Henderson of the Environmental Council of the States, observed in the Council’s Green Report that:
“State environmental agencies, rather than the EPA, run more than 90% of the federal environmental programs, through delegation, primacy, or authorization (delegation/delegated). State environmental agencies manage these programs, which may include state-specific requirements, using state-based and federal funds… Overall from FY2020 to FY2023, state EABs [Environmental Agency Budgets] rose to an average in FY2023 of $486.7M and a median of $179.2M. The increase represents a 63.3% or $188.7M rise over four years, with the median state EAB increasing by $43.1M.”
Of course, all environmental agencies are not created equal. California has over 5,000 staffers, Texas has about 2,600, and New York and New Jersey have close to 2,000 each. In New York City, our Department of Environmental Protection has nearly 6,000 staffers. Each state has a different geography and population, and each have distinct environmental problems, but states like Mississippi only have around 500 staff in their environmental agency and are hard-pressed to enforce environmental rules. Many of the authorities that state agencies operate under have been delegated to them by the federal government. If states fail to enforce federal rules, the national government is supposed to take over for the state. This often fails to take place, as we learned when EPA Region V failed to take over the regulation of Flint, Michigan’s water quality when Michigan clearly failed to do so.
Despite these failures, state and local governments, by necessity, are more responsive to public concerns about pollution. This tends to transcend partisanship and is seen as basic service delivery by state and local governments, and the public expects these services to be competently administered. As New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia long ago observed, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the garbage.” The fact is that other than climate change, environmental problems and impacts can be directly seen and experienced. As the public understands the connection between global warming and extreme weather, even climate change is starting to be directly seen and understood. When the level of air pollution is high, people are advised to stay indoors as much as possible. When water supplies are polluted, people are told the water must be boiled before being consumed or replaced with bottled water. These are not issues subject to interpretation or ideology. This is why, regardless of the power games played by national politicians, environmental protection will persist in states, cities, counties, and communities throughout America.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
