You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:

Americans love their public lands — particularly Americans living in the West, where easy access to the region’s undeveloped forests, mountains, rivers, deserts, and lakes is a point of identity and pride. But on Friday, in its first action as a voting body, the House of Representatives for the 119th Congress approved a rules package that reintroduces a provision making it easier for lawmakers to cede control of federal lands to local authorities. That, in turn, could result in vast swaths of the West being opened up to drilling or auctioned off to private owners, according to critics.
“It’s an obscure provision that [Congress] is using to essentially obfuscate the paving of the way towards selling off federal public lands,” Michael Carroll, the BLM Campaign Director at the Wilderness Society, told me of the rulemaking maneuver.
Republicans have tried this before. In 2017, during the party’s trifecta, the House approved a rules package with a near-identical provision that essentially declared that public lands do not have a budgetary value that needs to be accounted for when they’re sold, streamlining potential handovers. New Mexico Democratic Representative Raúl Grijalva described the provision at the time as allowing Congress to “give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value.”
Utah Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz subsequently attempted to take advantage of the provision by introducing legislation that would have transferred 3 million acres of Western federal land to state control — a bill that was met by so much opposition from hunters, anglers, and his own furious constituents that he ultimately withdrew it.
The provision briefly disappeared from the rules packages of the 116th and 117th Congresses, when the House was controlled by Democrats, then reappeared again in 2023, when Congress was split but the House was in Republican control. But to advocates for public lands, the provision’s inclusion in the 119th Congress’ rules seems like a mere extension and more like a tactical teeing-up for the incoming Republican trifecta. “Utah politicians aren’t stupid. They learn from their mistakes,” Carroll said.
He described an anticipated three-pronged approach to land privatization headed into 2024: the judiciary route, with the Supreme Court poised to decide whether or not to hear a Utah lawsuit over the constitutionality of federal control of BLM lands later thisweek; the legislative route, which began with Friday’s rule package; and the administrative route, with Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, who supports Utah’s lawsuit, under a directive to increase drilling. “It’s all backed up by the amount of money that the state of Utah appropriated to support their lawsuit — $20 million that they didn’t have that last time,” Carroll added.
He doesn’t expect Republicans to sit around twiddling their thumbs, either. In 2017, the “Trump administration was pretty new to governing and the levers of power.” He expects in 2024 “we’re going to see, in the next two weeks, legislation that moves to privatize public lands.”
“We need to hear Republicans when they say, ‘Drill, baby drill,’” Carroll went on. “That has real consequences for federal public lands.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.
The move would mark a significant escalation in Trump’s hostility toward climate diplomacy.
The United States is departing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the overarching treaty that has organized global climate diplomacy for more than 30 years, according to the Associated Press.
The withdrawal, if confirmed, marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term.
Trump has twice removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a largely nonbinding pact that commits the world’s countries to report their carbon emissions reduction goals on a multi-year basis. He most recently did so in 2025, after President Biden rejoined the treaty.
But Trump has never previously touched the UNFCCC. That older pact was ratified by the Senate, and it has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement.
The United States was a founding member of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It first joined the treaty in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed the pact and lawmakers unanimously ratified it.
Every other country in the world belongs to the UNFCCC. By withdrawing from the treaty, the U.S. would likely be locked out of the Conference of the Parties, the annual UN summit on climate change. It could also lose any influence over UN spending to drive climate adaptation in developing countries.
It remains unclear whether another president could rejoin the framework convention without a Senate vote.
As of 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, the AP report cited a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the news had not yet been announced.
The Trump administration has yet to confirm the departure. On Wednesday afternoon, the White House posted a notice to its website saying that the U.S. would leave dozens of UN groups, including those that “promote radical climate policies,” without providing specifics. The announcement was taken down from the White House website after a few minutes.
The White House later confirmed the departure from 31 UN entities in a post on the social network X, but did not list the groups in question.