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’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
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
Q&A

Why the Wilderness Society Backs a Data Center Moratorium

Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.

The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Data Center Outrage Catches Up to Renewables Outrage in Michigan

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).

  • This week brought the first and likely only debate between Rep. Tom Barrett and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who are locked in a tight contest over the Michigan 7th congressional district. As I’ve written, their race is a must-watch not only for control of the U.S. House but also the political fortunes of the data center sector.
  • The debate contained a remarkable exchange: Moderators played taped remarks from Paula Caltrider, identified as “a local resident” in the city of Mason to ask the candidates a question about data centers. Instead, she offered a comment. “You know, you can’t be a part of this no data center movement without renouncing the large solar farms and dangerous battery storage facilities that power these data centers.” (Quick TL;DR on Caltrider: She’s been quoted in national media coverage of the data center backlash and last year won a legal settlement after allegedly being fired for refusing a vaccine mandate.)
  • Barrett then ran with Caltrider’s baton. “I appreciate Paula linking these together, the stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing that took away control from communities” – a reference to the state’s primacy law that other Michigan Republican candidates have opposed.
  • Lawrence, whose support for a federal data center moratorium made him a national political test case, did not take the bait, nor did he criticize renewable energy. Instead, this part of the debate became a tit-for-tat about whether the sitting congressman once backed tax breaks for data centers. “He stuck his finger up into the wind, saw which way it was blowing, did a complete 180 on this issue,” Lawrence said. Then Barrett and Lawrence got into a confusing back-and-forth about whether the Inflation Reduction Act was a giveaway to data centers.
  • To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the Data Center Trojan Horse has reared its ugly head on any kind of prominent debate stage, but it won’t be the last. For example: The Wisconsin gubernatorial debate is Oct. 21, and we’ve warned you about that one.

2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Data Center Backlash Is Coming for Permitting Reform

The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.

The Capitol and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.

This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow