The Department of Interior under Trump has canceled environmental reviews for over 3,200 oil and gas leases on western public lands. These leases cover 3.5 million acres across multiple states. Officials cited uncertainty in greenhouse gas cost calculations as the reason. The decision removes requirements for climate impact studies and environmental justice evaluations. Environmental groups warn this could lead to increased emissions and damage to wildlife habitats. What might this mean for America’s climate goals?
While the battle over climate policy continues across the nation, the Department of Interior has rescinded environmental reviews for more than 3,200 oil and gas leases covering 3.5 million acres in seven western states. These leases, located in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and other states, have been involved in legal disputes for nearly a decade over compliance with environmental regulations.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages these lands, has excluded climate and environmental justice reviews from its assessment process. Officials cite uncertainty in greenhouse gas cost assessments as the reason for this change. The Trump administration is actively challenging the relevance of the “social cost of greenhouse gases” in environmental decision-making. The move aligns with new executive orders aimed at speeding up oil and gas drilling by reducing what the administration calls “burdensome” regulations. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum stated that this action is a response to an “energy emergency” declared by President Trump.
BLM excludes climate reviews from oil and gas leasing process, citing greenhouse gas assessment uncertainties while advancing expedited drilling goals.
Environmental groups argue this decision undermines protections for public lands and nearby communities. These critics claim that bypassing requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violates federal law. Many of the affected areas contain sensitive ecosystems and important biodiversity.
The administration defends its approach by emphasizing economic growth and “American energy dominance” as priorities. Officials argue that faster approvals will boost U.S. energy independence and create economic opportunities. Recent oil and gas lease auctions, like one in New Mexico, have generated significant revenue—$20.7 million from a single sale. This policy shift could also impact the renewable energy market, where price volatility has been influenced by similar policy changes and supply-demand imbalances.
However, environmental advocates warn about increased risks of greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution. They point out that past court orders required more thorough environmental reviews, which are now being disregarded. The decision not to assess climate impacts may also conflict with national and global climate goals.
Legal challenges are expected as various organizations seek to hold the administration accountable for environmental oversight. Critics argue that ignoring long-term environmental effects places economic gains above public health and environmental stewardship, while supporters see the move as necessary for energy development and economic prosperity.
