The head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. resigned Tuesday morning after declining to comply with a Trump administration demand to freeze the assets of a multibillion-dollar Biden administration environmental grant initiative, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Veteran prosecutor Denise Cheung did not spell out her reasons for her sudden resignation in an emailed announcement to colleagues that was obtained by The Washington Post, but she praised her co-workers for their “countless” sacrifices in the service of the public and honest law enforcement.
“This office is a special place,” she wrote. “I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and I have executed this duty faithfully.”
Cheung’s resignation came in connection with a Justice Department effort to assist President Donald Trump’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who said last week that he would try to rescind $20 billion in grants awarded by the Biden administration for climate and clean energy projects, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
Beneficiaries of a $20 billion clean-energy program that the Trump administration wants to claw back might sue to keep the money, a leader of one such group told Semafor.
Under the new leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, the US Environmental Protection Agency wants to knock down the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, citing concerns that the money — ostensibly to support low-carbon energy projects in disadvantaged communities — is being doled out “in a rush job with reduced oversight.”
“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of climate justice and environmental equity are over,” Zeldin posted on X last week.
But retrieving the money won’t be easy, in part because the nonprofits selected to disburse it countrywide could sue to block the effort, said Lenwood Long, Sr., chair of the board of the Justice Climate Fund, a coalition of community development nonprofits that was awarded $940 million from the GGRF.
“It is shameful that such actions are being considered,” he said. “These are not pork-barrel projects. These are seasoned organizations that have been doing lending and housing for decades.”
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
Bergen County lawmaker, Assemblyman John Azzariti Jr., is the first to introduce legislation repealing New Jersey’s 2020 law banning single-use plastics and paper bags. His bill follows President Donald Trump’s executive order to bring back plastic straws and studies demonstrating how reusable bags actually increased waste in New Jersey.
“New Jersey implemented the most restrictive ban on single-use plastics, Styrofoam and paper carryout bags to much left-wing fanfare, but the unintended consequences of the law are starting to negate any environmental benefits,” Azzariti (R-Bergen) said. “Just because your intuition tells you something is going to be true, science can prove you wrong.”
According to a study released last year by the Freedonia Group, New Jersey’s anti-plastics law has been followed by a near tripling of plastic consumption. The reusable bags consumers are forced to purchase are manufactured with 15 to 20 times the amount of plastic used in the now prohibited single-use plastic bags. They are also being thrown away, or forgotten, after just a few uses.
In 1995, a person in New Jersey disposed of 11.83 pounds of waste on a daily basis. In 2021, that number jumped to about 13 pounds – the year that single-use plastics started to be phased out.
“New Jersey’s 9 million residents started accumulating massive amounts of woven and reusable bags after the plastic bag ban went into effect. It became so overwhelming that these bags eventually ended up in the garbage, because they aren’t recyclable or biodegradable,” Azzariti said. “There’s been no consensus on if the ban has worked, and in fact, there’s only evidence to suggest that prohibiting single-use plastics may even have the opposite effect.”
A study by Environmental and Resource Economics found restrictions on plastic grocery bags actually led to increased plastic garbage bag purchases. Over 120 pounds more plastic was purchased per store per month.
Alternative shopping bags made with non-woven polypropylene use over 15 times more plastic and generate more than five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions during production than traditional plastic bags. Consequently, these bags end up having a much larger carbon footprint.
“My legislation isn’t only about being inconvenienced or disliking paper straws, although I think most people would generally agree with those two sentiments, it’s about looking at the broader impact of heavy-handed government mandates,” Azzariti said. “Just because the government declares something ‘bad’ for the environment, doesn’t mean it should be outlawed.”
One 2023 study by Belgian researchers found some paper and bamboo straws contain more PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” than plastic straws. Exposure to PFAS is linked to an increased risk of certain cancers. Even environmentalists have admitted to finding toxic dyes and glues in paper straws during testing.
The order Trump signed on Feb. 10 directs federal agencies to stop purchasing paper straws. The federal government buys more straws than any other group in the nation.
Azzariti’s bill (A5338) abolishes New Jersey’s law signed in 2020 that phased out single-use plastic bags and straws, paper carryout bags, and Styrofoam to-go containers.
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
As we warned in a January 29 client alert, President Trump’s Executive Orders and the subsequent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum ordering federal agencies to “temporarily pause” any and all funding disbursements and obligations were “just the beginning.” Despite the purported rescission of the OMB memorandum and two court orders enjoining its implementation, the status of federal funding is, if anything, even more tenuous two weeks later.
The Administration’s Shifting Positions
Since late January, federal funding recipients have lived in a state of perpetual whiplash. As reported by states and other organizations, federal grantees have lost access to their funds, then temporarily regained access, only to again see their accounts suspended—all on the basis of unknown or shifting rationales.
The Government’s changed positions are too many to recount, particularly when it comes to climate and infrastructure funding appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). To briefly recap, on January 20, Trump issued the “Unleashing American Energy” Executive Order (“the Energy EO”), which directed federal agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the [IRA] or [IIJA].” OMB then issued Memo M-25-11, reiterating the executive order’s “immediate[] pause” of what they dub “Green New Deal” funding. And on January 27, 2025, OMB issued Memo M-25-13, which states in relevant part that:
to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.Litigation ensued, with twenty-two states and the District of Columbia bringing a federal suit in Rhode Island, and several nonprofit organizations filing a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C. Each lawsuit challenged the legality of OMB Memorandum M-25-13 and sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Government from withholding funds pursuant to the directive. (Two weeks later, on February 13, the States expanded their pleadings to directly challenge and enjoin the Energy EO’s funding-freeze mandate, OMB Memo M-25-11, and other related executive actions.)
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
The university’s moves were in stark contrast to other local schools, including Temple and Drexel, though some schools nationally have taken similar steps.
By Susan Snyder, Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 15, 2025
The University of Pennsylvania’s medical school plans to dissolve committees having to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion and any roles that implement such efforts.
That’s what Roy Hamilton, vice dean for inclusion, diversity, and equity at the Perelman School of Medicine, communicated to a group of medical school diversity program leaders at a meeting this week, according to a source who attended but asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.
Its websites dealing with diversity also are under review by a university committee and will likely undergo removal or significant modification, the source said. Even the school’s pipeline programs that bring candidates from diverse backgrounds into the medical school for programming will be evaluated to be sure they do not discriminate against anyone, including nonminorities. Those programs also could be changed or dissolved, the source said.
That move represented one action Penn is taking to respond to President Donald Trump’s executive order threatening funding for colleges that employ diversity efforts. Penn Medicine is far from the only school at the Ivy League university taking such measures. Hamilton told attendees the directives were coming from College Hall, Penn’s main administration building.
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
Offshore oil and gas facilities do not last forever. When wells run dry or production is no longer profitable, companies face the task of decommissioning. This complex process involves retiring old structures, sealing wells, and restoring marine environments. In recent years, decommissioning work has grown worldwide due to aging infrastructures and stricter environmental regulations. While decommissioning is vital for safety and environmental protection, it also raises concerns about worker safety.
Below is an in-depth look at offshore decommissioning, how it is funded, and the specific risks that workers face as more wells and platforms reach the end of their operating lives.
Understanding Offshore Decommissioning
Offshore decommissioning refers to the series of steps taken to retire old oil and gas infrastructure at sea. This process can involve plugging and abandoning wells, removing topside equipment, dismantling platform structures, and disposing or repurposing materials. According to the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), decommissioning must meet strict guidelines to ensure that unproductive wells are properly sealed, preventing leaks that could harm marine life orimpact water quality.
Decommissioning can be broken down into phases. First, companies must study and plan on how best to seal wells, remove pipelines, and possibly reuse platform components. Next, divers and specialized crews work on plugging wells with cement, making sure no hydrocarbons can escape into the sea. Afterward, structures such as platform decks or jackets may be taken apart and sent to shore for recycling or safe disposal. Alternatively, some platforms are modified into artificial reefs if certain criteria are met. The ultimate goal is to reduce environmental impacts and clear navigational hazards.
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month.
