{"id":744086,"date":"2026-07-05T05:39:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T05:39:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/744086\/"},"modified":"2026-07-05T05:39:24","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T05:39:24","slug":"trump-officials-to-slash-public-input-on-fossil-fuel-drilling-on-federal-lands-fossil-fuels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/744086\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump officials to slash public input on fossil fuel drilling on federal lands | Fossil fuels"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration<\/a> is attempting to shrink public comment periods for fossil fuel leasing on federal land while shifting the financial risks of cleanup to taxpayers and allowing for more planet-warming emissions. It\u2019s part of a broader effort to dismantle public input processes and save polluting companies money, advocates say.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy ignoring public comment [requirements] while propping up companies,\u201d said Alexa Dietrich, research director at the science advocacy organization Union of Concerned Scientists, \u201cthey\u2019re really attacking democracy in a very clear way.\u201d<\/p>\n

The interior department said this week it wants to loosen<\/a> two Biden-era regulations<\/a> governing oil and gas drilling on national public lands. One would dramatically lower the fees that firms must pay for future cleanup costs before drilling; the second could allow companies to release more methane, a potent planet-warming pollutant.<\/p>\n

The changes would also mean the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) \u2013 part of the interior department \u2013 would no longer be required to assess whether swaths of land proposed for oil and gas leasing have high potential for conflict with other resources such as wildlife habitat. And the proposal would slash the public\u2019s ability to weigh in on oil and gas permitting.<\/p>\n

Arrow chart of the reduced timelines for public commenting on oil and gas projects<\/a><\/p>\n

Currently,<\/a> the BLM must give the public 30 days to weigh in on which tracts of land will be made available in a lease sale. Officials must also draft National Environmental Policy Act documents for each sale, providing an additional comment period of no less than 30 days. Once notice for a lease sale is published, BLM must provide a 30-day \u201cprotest period\u201d to allow for additional public input,\u201d amounting to at least 90 days of public participation in total.<\/p>\n

If the revisions are finalized, the need for those first two public comment periods would be eliminated completely, and protest periods would last just 10 days instead of 30. That would mean the public would not be able to weigh in on environmental reviews before they are finalized, said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the national environmental advocacy non-profit Center for Biological Diversity.<\/p>\n

\u201cA 10-day protest period is also insufficient for the public to weigh in when there can be dozens of lease parcels in a single lease sale, each with unique resource concerns,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s crucial for the public to be able to have time to raise concerns about specific resources on the ground, especially because BLM staff are not oftentimes necessarily familiar with conditions on the ground and what the effects might be of their decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an emailed comment, an interior department spokesperson said: \u201cThe proposed revisions to the oil and gas leasing rule streamline outdated procedures that have slowed the development of reliable, domestic energy in accordance with BLM\u2019s multiple use and sustained yield mission.\u201d And in a statement, the interior secretary, Doug Burgum, said the changes would ease restrictions that hamstring domestic energy production.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese targeted updates cut through the red tape that has historically deterred investment, ensuring our public lands remain a reliable engine for economic growth and innovation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

But Park said public input mechanisms boost efficiency in the long term, enabling agencies and communities to \u201chead off\u201d conflicts early, without needing to file litigation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a really important way for agencies to actually make better decisions, to make decisions that result in less conflict and ultimately save time and money,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Public input processes dismantled<\/p>\n

The interior department proposal is just the latest attack on public participation in environmental reviews from the Trump administration. In February, the Forest Service proposed<\/a> drastically cutting down comment and objection periods for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, while eliminating the possibility of extensions.<\/p>\n

Over the past year and a half, BLM also took expanded<\/a> exemptions<\/a> for energy producers<\/a> from environmental reviews. And in May, the interior department released guidance outlining a process for certain energy projects to circumvent environmental reviews.<\/p>\n

Last February, the Council on Environmental Quality also rescinded all of its longstanding regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act, which require agencies to consider the environmental impact of projects and permits. The agency solicited public comments but said they would have no effect on the final rule.<\/p>\n

Since that change was made, agencies including the Department of Agriculture, interior department, Surface Transportation Board, army corps of engineers, energy departmentand National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have all proposed or finalized changes eliminating public comment requirements, Park found.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency, too, proposed what it called \u201cminor changes\u201d to its procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which would make comment periods for environmental reviews optional.<\/p>\n

The Guardian contacted the Department of Agriculture, interior department, Surface Transportation Board, army corps of engineers, energy department and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for comment.<\/p>\n

In an email, a White House official defended the administration\u2019s NEPA reforms, saying they preserved comment periods that are required by Congress and provide additional ones where officials see fit.<\/p>\n

An EPA spokesperson derided environmentalists concerned about its NEPA proposal as \u201cleft-wing environmental radicals\u201d who \u201cspent years turning NEPA into a weapon to hinder American energy dominance and prosperity\u201d, saying the agency intended to streamline \u201cbyzantine and outdated rules\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnlike the previous administration, which let the deranged climate cult call the shots, President Trump and Administrator Zeldin understand things need to drastically change if we want to get America building again,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cThe Trump EPA\u2019s proposal restores NEPA to its original purpose: setting firm timelines, keeping documents focused and concise, and expanding proven, low-risk review pathways, all while keeping environmental protections fully intact.\u201d<\/p>\n

Table of federal agencies with reduced public commenting periods<\/a><\/p>\n

In some cases, the Trump administration has simply stated that comment periods are unnecessary to issue new rules. Last April, for instance, the president signed an executive order<\/a> directing the energy department to repeal the water efficiency standards for showerheads, stating: \u201cNotice and comment is unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not only environmental reviews for which the Trump administration has cut back public input processes.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe shrinking of the ability for public input is a hallmark<\/a> of the administration\u2019s approach to deregulation,\u201d said Dietrich.<\/p>\n

Just last month, officials came under fire when the office of management and budget proposed a sweeping overhaul of the rules governing federal grants and financial assistance, offering just a 45-day comment period with no possibility of extension.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese attacks are so widespread, they\u2019ve become so pervasive, that they\u2019re hard to even track,\u201d Dietrich. \u201cThe administration is eliminating an important part of our democratic participation \u2026 where people still get to have a voice, not just every four years when they vote, but throughout the process of governance.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Big oil billionaire buddies\u2019<\/p>\n

Even as it has sought to weaken environmental reviews, the administration has selectively invoked those processes to challenge renewable energy and climate policies, critics say. In August, the interior department ordered<\/a> officials to assess whether unintentional eagle deaths from wind turbines violated environmental protections; weeks later, the justice department asked for public comments<\/a> on state climate laws that \u201cburden\u201d economies.<\/p>\n

\u201cTrump [is] fast-tracking dirty fossil fuel projects without letting communities or experts have a say, while blocking the cleaner, cheaper energy that would actually lower costs for families,\u201d said Alex Glass, a director at the climate advocacy group Climate Power.<\/p>\n

A cowboy, his daughter and herding dogs ride down a dirt road as they herd cows in the San Rafael Swell on BLM land on 14 April 2024 outside Green River, Utah. Photograph: George Frey\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

And while it has narrowed public participation in policymaking, officials have made it easier for corporations to press their interests with regulators, said Dietrich. In March, for instance, officials invited polluting facilities to seek exemptions from toxic pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act by simply sending an email. They have also extended compliance deadlines<\/a> for some polluting companies.<\/p>\n

Trump obtained a record donations<\/a> from the oil and gas sector on the campaign trail, critics note. The Guardian has contacted the White House for comment.<\/p>\n

Critics say the interior department\u2019s latest proposals reflect those allegiances. Among them is a measure that would slash the financial assurances companies must provide to cover the cleanup of spent wells, from the $500,000 requirement established under Biden to $25,000.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis rollback lets companies put up far less money than cleanup actually costs, so when the wells stop producing and the operators move on, taxpayers and nearby communities can be left with polluted water, leaking methane, and the tab,\u201d said Amy Mall, director of fossil fuels at the conservation group Natural Resources Defense Council.<\/p>\n

Under the department\u2019s proposals, energy firms could also release more methane, a powerful planet-heating gas that is about 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide in its first century in the atmosphere. The Biden-era rule required energy companies to certify that they will capture all of the oil and gas produced by their wells or come up with a plan to reduce their methane releases \u2013 but the new proposal would remove that stipulation.<\/p>\n

\u201cMake no mistake: Trump is looking out for his big oil billionaire buddies, not American families,\u201d said Glass.<\/p>\n

This article was amended on 30 June 2026. An earlier graphic said that the Surface Transportation Board would eliminate public involvement in draft environmental impact statements; in fact, public involvement would be discretionary.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Trump administration is attempting to shrink public comment periods for fossil fuel leasing on federal land while…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":744087,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[192,79],"class_list":["post-744086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-environment","tag-environment","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/744086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=744086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/744086\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/744087"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=744086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=744086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=744086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}