Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Russ Vought Makes a Power Play for Trump’s Energy Policy

The president’s early executive orders give the once-and-future head of the Office of Management and Budget far-reaching powers.

•
Russ Vought Makes a Power Play for Trump’s Energy Policy
Illustration by Simon Abranowicz

When Donald Trump has talked about his new administration’s energy policy leaders, he has focused, so far, on a specific type of person.

You might call them energy insiders. At the highest level, they include Doug Burgum, the former North Dakota governor and incoming interior secretary, and Chris Wright, the fracking executive and incoming energy secretary. Both soon-to-be officials know a lot about how the energy industry works, and they hold beliefs about energy development that — while far from aligned with the climate policy mainstream — are directionally in agreement with many in the fossil fuel industry itself.

But based on a close reading of Trump’s initial executive orders, they are not the only officials who will wield power in the Trump administration. Instead, crucial energy policy will be decided in part by a small number of individuals who have no special insight into the energy industry, but who do have various dogmatic ideas about how the government and the economy should work. The most powerful of this second group is Russ Vought, a lead author of Project 2025 and the director-designate of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Trump’s initial orders establish the White House Office of Management and Budget, known as OMB, as an unmistakable de facto power center for energy and climate policy in the administration. In clause after clause of Trump’s orders, energy officials across the federal government are told to consult with the OMB director before they can make a decision, rewrite a regulation, or disburse funding.

Even in more constrained presidencies, OMB has been a particularly powerful agency. As the largest office in the White House, OMB is in charge of writing the president’s annual budget proposal and working with Congress on legislation; one of its suboffices, the Office of Information and Regulation, approves new federal rules before they are finalized.

Vought’s vision for the agency goes far beyond those traditional lines, though. He believes that OMB can play a role in curtailing the size of the federal government and firing reams of civil servants. He argues that the White House can claw back funding that has been appropriated by Congress, even though the Constitution gives control over “the power of the purse” to Congress alone.

Trump’s executive orders suggest that Vought’s OMB will seek to uproot existing energy policy — and that some of his earliest attempts at freezing congressional spending may affect the climate.

A provision in Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed hours after his inauguration, pauses all funding tied to the Inflation Reduction Act or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law until Vought personally approves of it.

This provision appeared to freeze all funding tied to either law for 90 days, a drastic move that could already violate Congress’s spending authority under the Constitution. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a federal law that governs this authority, allows the president to pause funding for 45 days, not 90. (Vought believes that this law is “unconstitutional.”)

Then it allows Vought and Kevin Hassett, who will lead Trump’s National Economic Council, discretion over whether that money gets spent. “No funds identified in this subsection … shall be disbursed by a given agency until the Director of OMB and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy have determined that such disbursements are consistent with any review recommendations they have chosen to adopt,” the order says.

After this order threw billions of dollars of federal highway and transportation funding into question, the White House seemed to walk back some of the policy Tuesday, clarifying that it only sought to block funding related to what it called President Joe Biden’s “Green New Deal.” (Even this change still leaves open exactly what funding has been frozen.)

This is not the only place where OMB appears in Trump’s energy orders. The “Unleashing American Energy” directive requires the head of the Environmental Protection Administration to reopen a study into whether carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are dangerous air pollutants.

The EPA first found that greenhouse gases cause climate change — and are therefore dangerous — in 2009. The first Trump administration didn’t try to overturn this finding because it is scientifically unimpeachable.

The same order also says that OMB will soon issue new rules governing agency actions “when procuring goods and services, making decisions about leases, and making other arrangements that result in disbursements of Federal funds.”

Missing from the new executive orders is virtually any mention of the National Energy Council, the new Burgum-led entity that Trump has said he will create in the White House. It’s still unclear what role this body will play in the Trump administration, but it has been described as a nerve center for decision-making about all energy policy. The new array of orders suggest OMB may already be claiming part of that role.

That said, the Interior and Energy secretaries make their own appearance in the orders. The orders direct the Secretary of the Interior to investigate what can be done to speed up and grant permits for domestic mining. And the orders convene the Endangered Species Act’s so-called “God squad,” a council of agency heads that can override provisions in the conservation law. The Interior Secretary sits on this powerful committee.

The most significant sign of Wright’s influence, meanwhile, is that Trump’s declaration of an energy “emergency” calls out energy technologies that he favors or that his company has invested in, including geothermal technology and nuclear fission.

One possible reason for Wright and Burgum’s absence: Neither has yet joined the administration officially. Both are likely to be confirmed by the Senate on Thursday. They might want to talk to their colleague Russ Vought when they get in the door.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events, now just $99 $79.20/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Hotspots

Meta Data Center Federal Pipeline Review Due Early Next Year

And more of the week’s top fights around development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Richland Parish, Louisiana – Gird your loins for the coming fight over the Meta Hyperion data center’s gas pipeline.

  • On Wednesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission laid out plans for an environmental assessment of the Entergy pipeline for the Meta data center under the National Environmental Policy Act and stated it’ll be issued in early January 2027. Federal agencies have been ordered by the panel to complete any remaining decisions on authorizations by April.
  • The decision to do an environmental assessment under NEPA will be controversial. The Sierra Club filed comments to FERC stating they wanted an environmental impact statement instead that took into account the environmental impacts of the data center being fed by the pipeline, as well as a review of the project’s cumulative impacts, as the activist group said they’re explicitly linked to the data center’s operations. “The power stations and data center are not remote or speculative developments unrelated to the proposed action,” their comments read.
  • This is quite similar to what’s playing out with the Green Chile pipeline in New Mexico for Oracle and OpenAI’s Project Jupiter, which we recently explained could turn into litigation with high stakes for future gas pipelines linked to data centers. But to me, this conflict with Meta feels like it has more at stake for this individual project, as it’s playing out while construction on gas power plants for the data center has been underway for almost a year after earlier being blessed by state regulators.
  • I asked Sierra Club what could happen next. Eric Huber, one of their managing attorneys, told me on Thursday, “I heard the EA is expected in January, but we are in wait and see mode and will decide on further steps when it comes out.” Meta and Entergy did not respond to a request for comment.

2. Spartanburg County, South Carolina – I have one last data center race to tell you to watch on Tuesday: South Carolina’s 4th, on the northern rim of the state.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Plus

Is the Election Really About Data Centers?

Talking with Kevin Gundersen, the head of public affairs for Digital Realty.

Kevin Gundersen
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Kevin Gundersen, head of public affairs for data center developer Digital Realty. On Wednesday, Digital Realty released a fascinating poll as part of Infrastructure for America, a pro-data center organization that also includes Compass, Vantage Data Centers, and QTS. The poll pushed back on the idea that we’re currently in the middle of a “data center election”; instead, it found most voters are not expected to choose their national elected officials based on a politician’s stance on data centers.

I reached out to folks involved in the poll's release, and they put me in touch with Gundersen, whom I’ve met before and consider to be a straight shooter. He accepted my invitation to do a candid hot-seat chat about the findings, his thoughts on all the data center attack ads, and whether his industry’s actually recovering any ground with the American people.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Why Project Certainty Is the Thorniest Part of the Permitting Bill

Can a key section of BAAJA be saved from unintended consequences?

Donald Trump and Congress.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Any bipartisan bill to update the nation’s permitting laws was always going to be a compromise, with advantages for the oil and gas industry as well as clean energy. Proponents of the Senate’s latest attempt at permitting reform have painted it as a delicate balance, a hard-won opportunity, and an all-or-nothing deal.

What, then, to make of drafting errors, or unintended consequences?

Keep reading...Show less