Under Trump, EPA's Enforcement of Environmental Laws Collapses, Report Finds The Trump administration's second term saw a significant collapse in the enforcement of environmental laws in the United States, according to a new report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The analysis of federal court and administrative data reveals a drastic drop in civil lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in cases referred by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During the first 12 months after Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, the DOJ filed just 16 such civil lawsuits - a 76% decrease compared to the first year of the Biden administration. This marked a sharp contrast to the Trump administration's first term, which had already seen a decline in environmental enforcement compared to the Obama era. In the first year of Trump's initial term, the DOJ filed 86 civil lawsuits in cases referred by the EPA. This was a significant drop from the 127 cases filed in the first year of the Obama administration four years earlier. The EIP's findings underscore a concerning trend of weakening environmental protection and enforcement under the Trump administration's policies. "This report shows a dramatic collapse in enforcement against polluters under the Trump EPA," said Eric Schaeffer, the EIP's executive director and a former director of civil enforcement at the EPA. Schaeffer attributed the decline to a combination of policy changes and budgetary cuts that have eroded the EPA's ability to monitor and punish environmental violations. "The Trump administration has systematically dismantled EPA's enforcement program, from cutting the enforcement budget to changing policies that make it harder to bring cases," he said. One of the most notable policy shifts was the EPA's decision to scale back the use of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in enforcement settlements. SEPs allow companies to invest in environmentally beneficial projects in lieu of paying fines, but the Trump EPA argued that they were being used excessively and lacked sufficient oversight. The report also highlighted a decline in administrative enforcement actions taken by the EPA, such as issuing administrative orders and penalty assessments. These actions, which do not involve the DOJ, dropped by 58% in the first year of Trump's second term compared to the final year of the Obama administration. The implications of this enforcement collapse are significant, as it undermines the government's ability to hold polluters accountable and deter future violations. "When enforcement goes down, the incentive for companies to comply with the law goes down as well," Schaeffer warned. "That means more pollution, more health risks, and more damage to the environment." The report's findings come at a time when the Trump administration has been widely criticized for its pro-industry policies and efforts to roll back numerous environmental regulations. Critics argue that these actions have prioritized the interests of fossil fuel companies and other polluters over the health and well-being of communities and the natural environment. "This administration has made it clear that they are more interested in protecting the profits of their corporate allies than enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect our air, water, and land," said Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator. Enck and other environmental advocates have called for a renewed focus on environmental enforcement and the restoration of the EPA's regulatory powers under a new administration. They argue that strong enforcement is essential for ensuring compliance with critical environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The EIP's report serves as a sobering reminder of the significant damage that can be done to environmental protections when enforcement is deprioritized. As the nation prepares for a new presidential election, the issue of environmental enforcement is likely to be a key battleground in the ongoing debate over the role of government in safeguarding the nation's natural resources and public health.