In a significant policy shift, former President Donald Trump has dismantled environmental justice initiatives previously aimed at aiding Black and Latino communities disproportionately affected by pollution. During his tenure, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under past administrations had prioritized improving health conditions in heavily polluted areas, often inhabited by minority and low-income residents. However, these efforts are now being reversed.
Among the first actions taken by the Trump administration was the elimination of a team of White House advisors tasked with ensuring federal support for communities near industrial hubs, ports, and major roadways. These advisors played a crucial role in implementing the Justice40 initiative developed by the Biden administration, which directed 40% of benefits from certain environmental programs to communities heavily impacted by pollution.
Environmental experts express concerns that, without these policies, new industrial projects may proceed without considering their cumulative impact on local populations already burdened by environmental hazards. The reversal also disrupts funding flows from the Inflation Reduction Act, which supported climate programs with an emphasis on environmental justice.
Historically, U.S. federal policy has aimed to address environmental health disparities, a priority dating back to the Clinton administration. The recent withdrawal from policies related to the Paris Agreement further amplifies the rollback, signaling a shift away from global climate commitments.
Joe Luppino-Esposito, federal policy chief of the Pacific Legal Foundation, argues that Trump's policy changes aim to remove what he describes as 'onerous' constraints on development. This perspective suggests a departure from diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations that had previously been part of environmental policy.
Under Biden, substantial progress was reported, including air quality improvements and regulatory measures targeting lead contamination and other pollutants. For instance, an EPA-funded study highlighted disproportionate respiratory health issues faced by Black communities, irrespective of income levels. Regulatory actions included setting stricter air pollution standards and allocating grants for pollution reduction projects and infrastructure improvements, such as low-emissions school buses.
Jade Begay, an Indigenous rights and climate advocate, expressed her frustration over the lost momentum in environmental advocacy and justice, noting a general febrile environment resistant to these issues.
As grassroots efforts historically thrive or decline based on the administration's stance, local organizations brace for change. Christophe Courchesne of Vermont Law and Graduate School emphasized that these programs had become embroiled in broader ideological debates regarding diversity and inclusion, intensifying conservative backlash against them.
Despite the setbacks, organizations like WE ACT for Environmental Justice, represented by Peggy Shepard, remain committed to sustaining advocacy at the state and local levels. This might prove more challenging in Republican-led states with less openness to environmental advocacy, such as Louisiana and Texas.
In summary, the rollback under Trump's leadership represents not only a strategic pivot but also an infusion of complexity in the campaign for environmental equity. While advocates continue to push for change, the path forward may now rely more heavily on localized efforts rather than federal guidance.