- The Trump Administration plans to reduce funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by more than 27 percent, including major cuts to its climate research programs. The President’s budget proposal, which could change before it is submitted to Congress for approval, would eliminate “all funding for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories and cooperative institutes.” If approved, the cuts would effectively halt NOAA’s research arm and curtail the agency’s ability to conduct climate research or support data collection used by farmers and other industries. The Administration also plans to propose cuts to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s science programs. The proposed cuts would take effect in 2026, but the Administration may expect NOAA to implement immediate changes.
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA proposed a rule to change the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to exclude habitat destruction. The revision would limit the ESA’s prohibition against the “take” of endangered species to just killing or capturing wild animals, not hurting their habitats. The revision would repeal the existing definition upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years ago in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon under Chevron deference. Citing Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Sweet Home and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, FWS concluded that the existing regulations “do not match the single, best meaning of the statute.” Although Loper Bright preserved the precedential force of prior cases that upheld specific agency actions under Chevron, FWS argued that the existing definition is not the only possible reading of the ESA.
- The U.S. Department of Energy issued a rule repealing the definition of “showerhead,” pursuant to an executive order directing the agency to do so. The agency repealed the rule without engaging in notice and comment, also at the direction of the executive order. The agency explained that foregoing notice and comment was permissible because the rule’s rescission qualified for the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause exception.” The exception applies if the agency finds that compliance would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Source Regulatory Review weekly update
