Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump and his Cabinet have taken a range of important executive actions directly impacting environmental law and regulations, focusing on achieving domestic energy dominance—a centerpiece of the Trump-Vance agenda. Many of these actions are highly controversial and headed for legal battles in the courts.

In the current edition of National Review, legal commentator Dan McLaughlin has an article entitled “The DOGE Ate My Constitution,” where he applauds many of the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including “cutting government bloat,” “expos[ing] wasteful spending,” and “drastically restructur[ing] many federal agencies and programs.” But he also cautions that, “Even the most urgent of causes . . . needs to be pursued within the law.” He writes: “failing to follow the law makes it far less likely that beneficial reforms will be implemented.” This observation is particularly relevant in the environmental law context, with its labyrinth of overlapping and complex statutory and regulatory regimes and armies of federal employees and contractors.

Against that backdrop, on April 29, 2025, the Federalist Society hosted the last of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power. The webinar, sponsored by the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group, was titled, “An Environmental Law Revolution: Will DOGE and the Second Trump Administration Achieve Lasting Positive Change?” Moderated by Jeff Wood, the panelists were Eric Grant, Professor Andrew Mergen, Sam Sankar, and Matt Leopold.

The panel reviewed the new Administration’s long list of executive actions and major regulatory reforms, and their possible future impacts on the environmental law regime, with a focus on whether these developments are, in fact, revolutionary; whether they will last or be a flash in the pan; and whether they are for the greater good or ill. The conversation focused on federalism principles, the Supreme Court, DOGE’s efforts to reorganize federal environmental agencies and personnel changes, and the durability of proposed changes.