Trump’s ‘Unprecedented’ Regulatory Rollbacks Fuel Surge in Protective Climate Lawsuits
Key takeaways
- The challenges to the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks, funding freezes and dismantling of existing climate rules made up 20 percent of climate cases filed in the U.S.
- Both the scale of federal regulatory rollback under Trump and the surge in protective climate litigation in response are “without precedent,” the authors of the analysis wrote.
- We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else.
Why this matters: environmental and climate reporting with long-term consequences.
June 26, 2026 Share This Article Republish People gather in front of the Supreme Court on June 25 in Washington, D.C. Credit: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Related Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Youth Climate Case Against Trump What Is an Energy Emergency? The Trump Administration Says It Alone Decides. Federal Courts Divided, So Far, on Trump’s Environmental Retreat Share This Article Republish Most Popular As Colorado River States Struggle to Reach Agreement, New Mexico Brings on a Fresh Voice A Pipeline Company Says It Will Protect the Environment in North Carolina. Its Record in Tennessee Says Otherwise. How a Tiny Texas River Agency Plans to Build the Largest Desalination Plant in the Country Sweeping revisions to U.S. climate policy in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term have spawned a wave of protective litigation, legal challenges aimed not at advancing new climate goals but at preventing the rollbacks of existing regulation and preserving hard-won legal gains.
The challenges to the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks, funding freezes and dismantling of existing climate rules made up 20 percent of climate cases filed in the U.S. in 2025, up from 13 percent during Trump’s first term, according to a global analysis from the London School of Economics.
Both the scale of federal regulatory rollback under Trump and the surge in protective climate litigation in response are “without precedent,” the authors of the analysis wrote.