Trump kleptocracy acts on majority of industry wish list
The fast action across various agencies comes after 100
manufacturing industry groups sent a letter to then President-elect Donald Trump last
December complaining of a “regulatory onslaught” under the Biden administration
that the group said was “strangling” the economy.
The letter, spearheaded by the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), which represents roughly 14,000 US companies across
various industries, listed 29 specific requests for regulatory rollbacks and
pro-industry policies that have environmental, energy, food, intellectual
property and financial impacts.
According to The New Lede’s analysis of the letter and
federal moves taken since, federal agencies have since acted on at least 23 of
the 29 requests — either scrapping or partially amending rules, or, in some
cases, signaling their intention to do so via executive orders or proposed rule
changes.
Industry leaders have applauded the moves.
“We’ve seen meaningful steps toward reducing unnecessary complexity and improving permitting processes, which aligns with our long-standing advocacy for regulatory certainty to drive American innovation and manufacturing competitiveness,” said Telly Lovelace, spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers and co-signed the letter.
But researchers and watchdog groups say the level of
industry influence in this administration is unprecedented and comes at the
expense of everyday Americans.
“They’re basically just ticking off the boxes of industry
wants,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health
and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco.
Environmental rules scrapped
Some asks in the letter were broad but several targeted specific environmental regulations passed during the Biden administration, including revisiting rules on particulate matter pollution, maintaining lower ozone standards and reversing greenhouse gas emissions standards for coal and natural gas plants — all of which have been done. NAM requested a lifting of Biden’s pause on liquid natural gas (LNG) exports, which the Trump administration did on its first day in office.
The letter called for a less strict Clean Water Act, which
the administration has signaled its intention to do, and fewer regulations on not just PFAS
but on multiple chemicals, including ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing gas used
as a fumigant, to make industrial chemicals and sterilize equipment. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acted on both as requested.
“Early actions to streamline permitting and clarify chemical
regulatory frameworks have been significant,” Lovelace said.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director at Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), said the moves by the EPA show who the
agency is serving. “The whole chemical industry has had a stranglehold for a
long time on the EPA,” he said.
In one key example, the December industry letter criticized
the EPA’s main regulatory tool in determining chemical risk, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), as causing “confusion” and “duplication.” And in
a proposed rule released last month,
the EPA said it wants to streamline chemical reviews and used similar language
to the NAM letter, saying it wants to avoid “confusion” and
“duplication.”
Whitehouse said there is some level of industry influence on
any administration but what’s happening with the current Trump administration
is “revolutionary.”
“And they’ve done it in such a very short period of time,”
he said.
The letter also pushed the administration to ease off some
stricter controls on chemicals and plastic waste in its international United
Nations’ Plastic Treaty negotiations, urging it to instead focus on “improving
product design and circularity and advancing consumer education.” US delegates
were in line with this ask at the most recent negotiations, working with heavy fossil-fuel
producing nations to weaken the treaty’s language.
Alex Ford, a biology professor and researcher at the
University of Portsmouth, said most people blame industries when rules get
scrapped, but it’s important to understand what the government has to gain.
Ford was recently the
lead author on a recent study that found industry influence on
governments around the world is driving the planet’s climate change,
biodiversity loss and chemical pollution crises.
“It’s the industry that’s pointed at as the bad actor but
very often it’s the interests of governments … especially when that
industry makes a lot of money for that country,” he said, pointing to the
plastic treaty and how much money nations derive from fossil fuels, the basis
of most plastics. The US government makes an estimated $138 billion annually from fossil fuels via
taxes and royalties.
Not all requests granted
There were some requests in the letter, however, that were
only partially addressed and some that the administration hasn’t acted upon at
all. For example, the letter asked the administration to consider how energy
tax incentives have benefitted manufacturers in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” gutted many of these energy tax credits.
“The whole chemical industry has had a stranglehold for a
long time on the EPA.” -Tim Whitehouse, PEER
The letter also suggested rescinding the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act, which was passed under Biden and mandates companies
to file premerger notifications with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the
Antitrust Division of the Justice Department for some acquisitions, and asked
the administration to narrow the scope of the Cyber Incident Reporting for
Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022. The administration hasn’t acted upon
either asks yet.
The NAM did not return requests for comment. Over the past
few months the association has publicly lauded moves in line with its asks, but also cautioned against
some of the Trump administration’s policies, such as tariffs.
Lovelace echoed this concern. “We continue to advocate for
trade policies that avoid measures that could disrupt critical supply chains
and increase costs for domestic manufacturers and American consumers.”
Lobbyist-to-regulator
The alignment of federal agencies with the letter’s
suggestions is just the latest evidence of industry influence on
administration’s health and environmental agencies. Several federal agencies —
including the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — have former
industry executives and lobbyists in key leadership roles.
The Trump administration is close to adding another as
Douglas Troutman, a lobbyist for the American Cleaning Institute, has been nominated to be the EPA’s assistant
administrator for toxic substances. The American Cleaning Institute was a
signatory to the letter.
The New Lede reported last month that lobbyists and leaders from
the agricultural, energy, chemical and plastics industries frequently met with
EPA officials during the first few months of the Trump administration,
according to a review of records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act
request. They had almost no meetings with environmental and health groups
during that time.
Federal agencies could not be reached for comment on the
industry letter due to the ongoing government shutdown. However, when asked
last month about the potential for industry influence at the EPA, an agency
spokeswoman said the question was “insulting” to EPA officials and that meeting
frequently with industry was part of the agency’s job.
Brian Bienkowski is the Managing Editor at The New Lede. He is a veteran reporter and editor, and has been awarded both local and national awards for his health and environmental reporting. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
