On July 3, the Office of Management and Budget released the Trump Administration’s Unified Agenda for 2026. The document, typically released once or twice a year, compiles all regulatory actions that an administration plans to take during the covered period. Consistent with President Trump’s aim of downsizing government, a large portion of the proposed rules reflect rollbacks of existing regulations. Many of these proposals would reverse important federal climate safeguards, including by reducing protections for federal lands; removing incentives for and imposing regulatory hurdles to the buildout of clean energy; and significantly scaling back air and water pollution limits.

This blog post highlights some of the most significant and potentially destructive proposals from the Unified Agenda—from a climate perspective. The Sabin Center’s Climate Backtracker provides a more comprehensive compilation of actions taken by the current Trump Administration to eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures, while the U.S. Climate Regulation Database provides an up-to-date resource for climate-related regulatory actions by federal agencies over the last several administrations.

DOI: Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, RIN 1004-AF03.

On May 9, 2026, the Department of the Interior issued the Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule as a final rule. It went into effect on June 11 but was nonetheless included in the July 3 Unified Agenda. The rule revoked the 2024 regulation known as the Public Lands Rule, which required the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to consider conservation and landscape health as an equivalent priority to other land uses like energy development and livestock grazing. It also allowed leasing of public land specifically for landscape restoration. The rescission of this rule removes restoration and mitigation leasing mechanisms, which allowed for environmental conservation to be weighed against extractive proposals. This, in turn, enables future extraction, creates a pathway for direct emissions, and disrupts the land’s ability to act as a carbon sink.

Although there have been no legal challenges to the final rule as of writing, litigation may follow. The rule may be contrary to the best reading of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). As described in a comment by Clean Air Task Force, “the best reading of FLPMA includes conservation and compensatory mitigation in the statutory mission and authority of the BLM,” as indicated by consistent agency interpretations of the statute since its passage. The new rule may also be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because BLM failed to adequately justify it. As noted by a coalition of California-based nonprofits, the new rule reverses the Public Lands Rule “without any mention whatsoever about [BLM’s] serious concerns—announced only months prior and grounded in its own science—about building resilience, stemming degradation, and addressing the impacts of climate change on BLM public lands.” It further “contradicts factual findings that underlay the prior policy” without justification, per Clean Air Task Force, which suggests that BLM failed to adequately support its decision-making.

DOI: Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy, RIN 1004-AF32.

The Department of the Interior proposed rescinding the Biden-era Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy rule, which was issued on May 1, 2024. The Trump administration initially proposed rescission on May 14, 2025, though it has yet to publish the proposal in the Federal Register. The 2024 rule in part granted the Secretary of the Interior discretion to reduce rental rates and capacity fees for wind and solar providers, as was enabled by the Energy Act of 2020. Reversing the rule would raise acreage rents and capacity fees to pre-2024 levels, significantly raising costs for wind and solar projects on public land managed by the BLM and thus making the clean energy transition less cost-competitive in favor of oil and natural gas. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed on July 4, 2025, already revoked the Secretary of the Interior’s authority to alter rates. Until the proposed rule is published, it is difficult to predict possible legal challenges.

DOI: Offshore Wind Regulatory Reform, RIN 1010-AE38. 

Aligning with President Trump’s outspoken opposition to offshore wind projects, the Department of the Interior has proposed a rule that will include “revisions to the offshore wind regulations addressing bidding credits and financial assurance.” Details on the proposed rule are sparse, though DOI plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register in August. It is poised to reform provisions of the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule, which planned to increase certainty and reduce costs for offshore wind projects by modernizing regulations, implementing a five-year leasing schedule, and investing in sustainable practices. Given that offshore wind projects require significant capital and multi-year development timelines, uncertainty and a lack of federal support would make it more difficult to develop these programs, codifying the administration’s aims of undercutting clean energy buildout. Earlier, in December 2025, a federal court voided President Trump’s executive order halting federal permitting and leasing for new offshore wind projects, finding that the ban was arbitrary and capricious and outside of the president’s authority. Instead, the Trump Administration has engaged in negotiations with energy companies to stop wind projects and fund fossil fuel projects, including with TotalEnergies and others. The administration has spent nearly $2 billion to cancel previously approved offshore wind leases, requiring developers to redirect that capital to oil and gas production.

DOI: Oil and Gas Leasing Rescission Rule, RIN 1004-AF05.

On June 24, the Bureau of Land Management published its intent to revise regulations around royalty allocations for oil and gas leases. The proposed rule would “reduce barriers” to oil and gas development on federal land and return minimum bond amounts to the levels prior to the passage of the Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule in 2024. The 2024 rule increased the minimum individual lease bond for oil and gas leases to $150,000 and the minimum statewide bond to $500,000. These bonds act as financial assurances that companies will abide by regulations to plug wells and restore the land after extraction, and can act as a deterrent against abandonment. They also provide BLM with funds to clean up extraction sites if companies declare insolvency. By returning individual lease bonds to $10,000 and statewide bonds to $25,000, the revised regulation would increase the risk of wells being abandoned by operators and increase the bureau’s burden to pay for reclamation. Given that unplugged oil and gas wells are a major source of methane, benzene, and other emissions, this change would represent a step backward in the management of greenhouse gas emissions.