Hill Heat

As written, S. 5653 (BAAJA) would hamper, if not altogether thwart, critical work by civil rights organizations to halt U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) dangerous expansion of immigrant detention, the Detention Watch Network warned today. It would, instead, accelerate ICE’s deadly warehousing of Americans.

The Detention Watch Network is a national coalition fighting to end immigrant detention, and ICE’s inability to respect laws protecting nature from industrial destruction has allowed the network to stop their rapid conversion of warehouses into detention camps.

“The lack of environmental review provided the essential basis for states and communities across the country to challenge ICE’s plans, resulting in NEPA lawsuits filed by the states of Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey; and cities in Texas, Georgia, and Utah,” explains the network. “In April, the state of Maryland won a preliminary injunction blocking ICE from proceeding with construction because of the lack of compliance with NEPA. As a direct result of that victory and others in similar lawsuits, ICE’s plans in Maryland and other states quickly stalled.”

However, if BAAJA passes, those laws limiting industrial construction would be effectively eliminated and the warehousing will recommence.

“In the future, ICE could proceed with massive, irreversible projects like the warehouse detention expansion project with little oversight and no meaningful legal recourse,” the network writes.

“If NEPA becomes utterly toothless, as it would under BAAJA,” Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen earlier criticized, “I wonder how state Attorneys General and our lawyers at Earthjustice could stop ICE from detaining thousands of people in Amazon-style warehouses as we have so far been able to do.”

Read the letter

At a conference at the University of Chicago on Tuesday, Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) expressed his concerns with BAAJA (S. 5653), particularly in the real-world context of rising data-center demand, a lawless Trump administration, economic headwinds for the renewable industry, and preparations for rapid acceleration of natural gas extraction and infrastructure.

Interviewed by Axios reporter Amy Harder, Casten stated he could “not yet” support the bill, particularly as it could “create a gold rush for gas.”

“Anybody who is telling you that they can model the effects of this bill is telling you what their opinion is,” Casten warned. “They’re not telling you facts because when you have a White House that is not obeying the law, I don’t know how to model a change in law.”

Watch:

Full transcript:

If enacted, the lame-duck industrial-expediting bill BAAJA (S. 5653) will provide blanket permission for Trump’s destructive wishes in our nation’s capital. In BAAJA Follies, Hill Heat reviews several of the major legal battles against that takeover, and the implications of BAAJA’s possible passage during the lame-duck session.

Lemmon v. Trump and County Board of Arlington v. NPS

If BAAJA passes, most of the legal avenues for opponents of the construction of the Trump arch will be narrowed or shut down.

In October 2025, Trump announced his plans for a gargantuan and garish “triumphal arch” blocking the view of the Lincoln Memorial from Arlington National Cemetery. He has since announced it will also serve as a new, mechanized military outpost with drones and snipers, a claim confirmed in October 2026 in affadavits by Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Represented by Public Citizen, three Vietnam veterans and an architectural historian brought suit in February against the arch’s construction, citing the Commemorative Works Act, NEPA, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

In April, Trump’s CFA voted for the arch.

In June, the National Parks Service issued a rushed environmental impact assessment under NEPA, with a finding of “no significant impact”; they then avoided soliciting comment on the environmental assessment.

Also in June, they published an assessment of effect on historic sites under NHPA’s Section 106, finding dozens of adverse effects on the sanctity of those sites, but then invited only ten days of public comment. In July, they reopened twenty more days of public comment after complaints from the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. In August, after receiving overwhelmingly negative comments, NPS issued a revised Section 106 statement finding even more adverse effects. In September, they issued a proposed historic-preservation agreement, admitting “adverse effects cannot be fully avoided” but that “the proposed location at Memorial Circle is central to the undertaking” and thus no alternative course of action could be considered.

Meanwhile, Secretary Burgum posted renderings of the arch and announced “excavation work” would begin mid-September, so plaintiffs filed for a restraining order, which was granted.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)—as he was negotiating legislation to kill section 106 of the NHPA—led a September 22 letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum against the Arch, citing “section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,” which requires the government to “avoid, minimize, or mitigate” adverse harm to historic sites. The letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Angus King (I-Maine), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

If enacted, the lame-duck industrial-expediting bill BAAJA (S. 5653) will provide blanket permission for Trump’s destructive wishes in our nation’s capital. In BAAJA Follies, Hill Heat reviews several of the major legal battles against that takeover, and the implications of BAAJA’s possible passage during the lame-duck session.

DC Preservation League v. Interior

Trump has been pressing forward to replace D.C.‘s historically important public park on Hains Point with Trump-style golf course. The passage of BAAJA would likely eliminate all legal means of opposition to Trump’s Hains Point plans.

As mentioned above, the Trump regime used Hains Point as the illegal dumping ground for the East Wing demolition. In December, Trump killed the leases held by the National Links Trust for D.C.‘s public golf courses, and the Wall Street Journal revealed Trump and Burgum had secretly discussed remaking the East Potomac Golf Links on Hains Point. In February, the DC Preservation League brought suit, represented by Democracy Forward. In April, Burgum’s lawyers told Judge Ana Reyes no decisions had been made on renovating the park, but at the beginning of May, NOTUS reported that “landscaping, deferred maintenance and tree-clearing work in line with the National Park Service’s pre-approved plans” were about to begin. A hasty court meeting was called and the judge ordered the regime “not to cut down more than 10 trees without first notifying plaintiffs and getting court approval.” A few days later, Burgum publicly revealed the planned redesign of Hains Point.

Contractors cut down hundreds of trees in October, spurring an angry rebuke from the judge and a restraining order blocking all new tree-cutting, with demands for phones and documents as Trump’s lawyers say one thing in court and Trump says the opposite in public.

At the moment, Trump’s plans are being restrained. However, if Congress passes BAAJA, the illegal dumping, illegal plans, and illegal destruction of historic places will become legal. The plaintiffs’ entire case will collapse, giving Trump near-total power over the future of Hains Point and East Potomac Park.

“Historical preservation matters to me,” Save East Potomac’s Alex Rosen told Hill Heat in a phone interview. “Expanding executive power, especially under this administration, is fucking unbelievable.”

Save East Po is encouraging people across the nation to contact their members of Congress to stop BAAJA.

If enacted, the lame-duck industrial-expediting bill BAAJA (S. 5653) will provide blanket permission for Trump’s destructive wishes in our nation’s capital. In BAAJA Follies, Hill Heat reviews several of the major legal battles against that takeover, and the implications of BAAJA’s possible passage during the lame-duck session.

National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service and NPS v. NTHP

With the East Ballroom, Trump is actively building a new, hardened military bunker in the White House, surmounted by a gaudy monument to himself. The Supreme Court killed a judicial stay on Trump’s illegal construction spree with the reasoning that historic preservationists can’t be harmed by the destruction of historical architecture, a ruling consistent with the text of BAAJA.

Over the course of a few days in October 2025, Trump contractors demolished the White House East Wing, illegally dumping thousands of cubic yards of debris in Hains Point, the site of the East Potomac Golf Course. The National Trust for Historic Preservation immediately brought suit against the construction of Trump’s ballroom under the National Capital Planning Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act. In March, a district court judge issued an injunction against the ballroom, but an appeals court soon lifted that stay, allowing construction to proceed, but in August the full court agreed with the injunction, stopping construction again. On an emergency basis, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump on August 31st by a vote of 5-4, overriding John Roberts and the liberal justices.

The right-wing ruling claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing, by finding that D.C. architectural historian Alison Hoagland would not be harmed in a concrete way by the destruction of the republican aesthetics of the People’s House. BAAJA’s radical restrictions of both standing and “adverse effects” parallel this ruling.

The strongest course of action for a potential Democratic Congress in January would be investigations with subpoenas of the ballroom donors, construction process, and ballroom blueprints. If the White House refused, they could immediately file suit and pursue a judicial stay on construction during the subpoena fight. Again, the passage of BAAJA in the lame duck would make fighting the illegal construction more difficult.

Several Democratic senators have indicated their current opposition to BAAJA (S. 5653), saying they doubt that Trump will fairly implement clean-energy provisions in the all-of-the-above industrial fast-tracking bill.

“The other piece that is still outstanding is the question of returning to regular order for wind and solar projects in the Trump administration. And that is unresolved.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said at the press conference announcing the bill. “They want to land this in good faith.”

In a letter to the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) explain they don’t share Whitehouse’s and Sen. Martin Heinrich’s (D-N.M.) optimism that “the White House appreciates the importance of good faith.” They write:

“The promise of BAAJA will only succeed if President Trump takes care that it is faithfully executed. The Trump administration’s record gives us no basis to assume that he will.”

“No one has explained why a Senator from a targeted State should help the Trump administration fast-track fossil fuel projects while it refuses to restore funding that Trump officials admitted was terminated on an illegal, partisan basis,” they continued.

Their real-world skepticism is shared by NRDC, which released a further analysis of the legislation on Monday, October 26:

“The backdrop, of course, is the Trump administration’s nonstop attacks on clean energy projects, tax incentives for clean energy, and climate standards. NRDC’s analysis finds in aggregate that the Trump administration’s actions could double carbon emissions from the power sector over the next decade while raising consumers’ electric utility bills by $30 billion per year by 2035. Lawmakers should push for tangible evidence that this has changed before voting on the legislation.”

NRDC also noted the sweeping ambition of the bill’s rollback of “core environmental laws,” “including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).”

The senators laid out a list of preconditions for supporting the November 9 vote on the motion to proceed to the bill:

“It would be compelling if, before the motion to proceed vote, the Trump administration directed DOE to 1) reinstate every award it terminated in October 2025 that it has not already restored, 2) to allow recipients to draw down those funds under the original award terms and 3) to commit in writing that it will not terminate an award because of the political identity of the recipient’s State or the party affiliation of its elected officials.”

The U.S. Department of Energy Alumni Network has identified over $8 billion in terminated energy projects, mostly hydrogen and fuel cells and carbon capture, a somewhat sizable amount of advanced manufacturing and industrial efficiency grants, with a much smaller amount in solar, grid, wind and other renewable technologies.

To put that number in perspective, Exxon’s revenue this year to date is $361 billion, and Anthropic’s revenue for the first half of 2026 was $16.5 billion.

The value of the bill’s passage to the data-center industry is expected to be in the trillions of dollars.

Download the letter.

Full text:

A group of former Environmental Protection Agency staffers warn that the lame-duck Senate industrial-expediting bill could cripple the agency’s ability to protect the public from air pollution and toxic chemicals.

In a letter to Congress sent on Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Network warns about the text of S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA):

We are concerned that, although the permitting bill was not intended to address the Clean Air Act, as written it could significantly limit EPA’s ability to issue regulations necessary to protect the public from air pollution. It also might limit EPA’s ability to bring enforcement actions, which not only protect public health, but also ensure that companies that comply with environmental laws are not disadvantaged when other companies attempt to save money by violating them.

Section 1401 therefore jeopardizes EPA’s future ability to provide the ongoing public health protection from harmful pollution and toxic chemicals that existing environmental laws require. Rather than reforming permitting to speed the building of abundant energy, § 1401 risks launching a wave of protracted litigation against EPA (and potentially other agencies) for doing the job Congress has asked it to do.

“While not addressed in detail here, we have significant concerns with the impacts of certain other provisions in the bill, including section 1402 and those affecting the Clean Water Act,” EPN executive director Michelle Roos added.

Read the full letter.

Native Americans in the home state of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), one of the co-sponsors of the Senate industrial-expediting bill, have forcefully rejected the legislation. The All Pueblo Council of Governors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), because it “rewrites the laws that protect our cultural resources, our water, and our community.”

Speaking at a National Council of American Indians press conference on Monday, October 19th, Charles Riley, governor from the Pueblo Acoma, announced the New Mexico tribes’ opposition to BAAJA, and noted that his tribe was not consulted, “as many tribes across the country were not.” He called out the bill’s radical changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and also the bill’s rewriting of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act.

Watch:

“Acoma is not against permitting reform,” Governor Riley concluded. “We ask Congress and the New Mexico delegation in particular to consult with the Pueblos and amend this bill before the Senate acts on it.”

Update Oct. 21: Rep. Stansbury (D-N.M.), who earlier expressed opposition to the bill, tells Hill Heat:

“I cannot support any bill that undermines Tribal sovereignty and consultation, the rights of our communities to have their voices heard, or which undermines the protection of natural and cultural resources. That will always be my line in the sand—which is why I cannot support this bill in its current form.”

Full transcript of Gov. Riley’s address:

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is “bullish” on the lame-duck passage of S. 5653, the industrial-fast-tracking legislation dubbed the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).

In an interview with the Washington Sun’s Igor Bobic, Schatz dismissed the argument that Democrats could negotiate a better bill with more Democrats in Congress after January 3rd. He said proponents of waiting such as Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) would have to “prove” that a better deal on permit reform will be possible after the lame-duck session. This is an impossible condition.

Schatz dismissed most critics of the data-center-accelerating legislation as “degrowthers” who “hate development of all kinds,” but conceded that “people who care about local ecosystems” and the “tribal side” have legitimate concerns.

He praised his own record of legislative compromise on climate policy, calling the 2015 “[temporary] extension of the investment tax credit and the production tax credit with the oil export ban being lifted” one of his “proudest moments,” further claiming that and “the IRA with the Mountain Valley Pipeline in it” were both “net-net good for climate.” The investment tax credit and the production tax credit for renewable energy are ending, while oil exports very rapidly outstripped the modeling of energy analysts, who incorrectly claimed the compromise would be net-net good for climate. Climate pollution in the United States and the world continues to rise.

Full transcript:

In a statement issued today, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) criticized the policies and the politics of the Lee-Capito-Heinrich-Whitehouse industrial deployment bill BAAJA, calling for negotiations on permit reform to continue in the next Congress, when Democrats “are likely to soon have a far better negotiating position.”

Huffman:

“Passing a good permitting reform package will be one of my top priorities for the next Congress, so I’m very interested in these Senate negotiations.

“From what I’ve seen, Senators Whitehouse and Heinrich have done some good work, but they’ve been negotiating from a position of weakness and the tentative deal unveiled today raises significant questions and concerns that would have to be resolved before most Democrats could support it.

“I’m all for streamlining transmission and clean energy buildout, but the threshold requirement before making major policy concessions is to actually end Trump’s war on renewables so that hundreds of bottled-up clean energy projects can bring that affordable power to the grid. Further, we can’t throw states, tribes, impacted communities, and threatened and endangered wildlife under the bus. And as we streamline and cut red tape, we must make sure the American people — not just powerful corporate interests — have a say in government decisions about what happens to our air, water, and public lands. That’s what serious, responsible permitting reform looks like.

“There’s a way to get there, and parts of this deal are helpful, but some of it concedes too much. Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act through the delegation of authority and problematic definitions, for example, is so extreme that a milder version of it spooked several House Republicans off of Bruce Westerman’s ESA bill earlier this year, so you can imagine how it’s going to land with the American people who overwhelmingly support protecting wildlife. And the provisions that seek to guarantee fair treatment for wind, solar, and battery storage are novel, untested, and don’t really end the war on clean energy, but they will still trigger cries of “Green New Deal” and fierce opposition from the House Freedom Caucus, clouding any path to pass this deal through the House unless it gets much worse. And knowing the GOP players, that’s exactly what will happen if this bill advances in the lame duck.

“The bottom line for me, and I believe most Democrats, is that November 3rd is coming and we are likely to soon have a far better negotiating position. Folding our hand now or in the lame duck makes no sense when we can keep working on this and, in a few more months, have a much better deal that works for everyone.”