Ending Environmental Justice May Amplify Uneven Pollution Impact

During his first week in office, President Donald Trump revoked executive orders on environmental justice issued by Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, which were focused on identifying populations suffering from disproportionate environmental and health burdens and taking actions to address those effects. Trump characterized the measures as “illegal discrimination in the federal government.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi followed suit, rescinding Department of Justice policies on environmental justice, writing in a memo that “going forward, the Department will evenhandedly enforce all federal civil and criminal laws, including environmental laws.”

Both Trump and Bondi have it backward. Contrary to their assertions, consideration of disproportionate environmental impacts is essential to the evenhanded administration of justice. To ignore these effects would be both irrational and inconsistent with established legal requirements.

An emergency room admitting someone with a serious health condition before a patient with a minor discomfort isn’t engaging in illegal discrimination. And, similarly, regulators focusing on pollution and public health in high-risk areas aren’t illegally discriminating.

It is well established that adverse consequences of pollution aren’t uniformly distributed throughout the country. And certain groups—particularly low-income communities and communities of color—are disproportionately exposed to high levels of pollution. Accordingly, regulators should pay particular attention to these communities, just like the emergency room pays particular attention to people whose health condition is more dire.

Few would suggest the “evenhandedly” enforcing “all federal and civil laws” requires police officers to devote equal resources toward ticketing drivers going 20 miles per hour over the speed limit and those going five miles per hour over the limit. Similarly, the government is justified in spending more money reinforcing levees that protect a large housing stock than in areas with no housing.

So, too, it is nonsensical to administer environmental laws without regard to the well-established science showing that certain communities are disproportionately affected by pollution. No legal precedent suggests these commonsense decisions amount to illegal discrimination. Policymakers will be unable to evenhandedly protect Americans from health risks if they don’t account for existing exposure to pollution.

The Trump administration’s positions aren’t only irrational as a matter of logic; they are also inconsistent with legal commands.

Until last month, I served as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, where I supervised the process through which the executive branch promulgates regulations, including environmental protection rules. Since 1981, this process has generally required the consideration of the benefits and costs of regulation. And it requires that the benefits of a regulation “justify” its costs.

There’s no way to know whether the benefits of a regulation justify the costs without knowing what the benefits are. And the benefits of pollution reduction are dependent on the traits of the affected populations, including their current pollution exposure and health burdens. If the recent move to ignore environmental justice stops decisionmakers from considering these differential impacts, they will have no way to take proper account of the benefits (or harms) of their regulatory actions.

Scientists have measured some of the disparate consequences of pollution across the population. It’s clear pollution is more harmful to individuals who already are subject to higher levels of pollution. For example, a large-scale nationwide study conducted by the American Lung Association found that people of color are 61% more likely than their White counterparts to live in counties that violate Environmental Protection Agency standards for an air pollutant.

Specific population groups are also more susceptible to the adverse effects of pollution. For example, a Massachusetts study, based on a sample of more than 130,000 participants, found that individuals in predominantly Black neighborhoods are more likely to die from cardiovascular disease related to exposure to particulate matter in the ambient air than individuals in predominantly White areas.

Given certain populations are both exposed to more pollution and are more susceptible to its adverse consequences, it’s not surprising their health outcomes are worse.

Important scientific work is being done to better measure and quantify these effects, and that work can help inform regulatory decisions. The Trump administration’s actions will likely thwart scientific efforts to understand the effects of disproportionate pollution burdens, as well as regulatory and enforcement measures to address these disparities. Both rationality and legal requirements will be compromised, and communities around the country will suffer unnecessary adverse health consequences as a result.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Richard L. Revesz is a law professor and dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law and was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from January 2023-2025.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines