Hill Heat

Free DC co-founder and executive director Keya Chatterjee warns that the industrial-expediting bill BAAJA (S. 5653) would give Trump more power to damage Washington D.C. and the rest of the nation.

“BAAJA is dangerous,” Chatterjee, an experienced climate justice activist, told Hill Heat in a written statement. “Trump just cut down hundreds of trees against a judge’s orders, wants drones and snipers in an arch pointed at where the March on Washington occurred, ran the Kennedy Center finances into the ground which made it shut down, made a mockery and a mess of the reflecting pool and the East Wing, and is egging on the data centers that are driving up electricity prices everywhere. Not a single senator should vote to remove guardrails that are preventing Trump from causing even more damage.”

Chatterjee’s warning about BAAJA’s threat to democracy and environmental justice agrees with other environmental and civil-rights experts and organizations, including Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen, the Detention Watch Network, the NAACP, and veteran climate attorney David Bookbinder.

In a recent public letter, David Bookbinder, one of the nation’s most prominent centrist climate-law experts, described the Senate industrial-expediting bill BAAJA (S. 5653) as “a serious threat to democracy.”

Bookbinder, who has served as chief counsel for the center-right Niskanen Center and for the Sierra Club, and led an independent legal consultancy with former ExxonMobil climate policy manager David Bailey, summarized the legislation thusly:

On the one hand, it makes renewable energy permitting easier and significantly improves federal transmission policy. On the other hand, it makes fossil fuel infrastructure permitting even easier than it has already become, binds future administrations to the energy permitting policies of the Trump administration, seriously weakens the Clean Water Act, and effectively repeals the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act.

Although he finds fault in every title of the bill, Bookbinder is most concerned by Title IV, “Project Certainty,” which “beggars belief.”

“By placing corporations with any such federal permit not above the law so much as completely beyond its reach,” Bookbinder continued, “these ‘project certainty’ provisions seriously threaten American democracy.”

BAAJA effectively repeals the National Environmental Policy Act: “These measures will make NEPA review largely meaningless, but ultimately that won’t matter because the Bill adds a new judicial review provision making whatever is left of NEPA unenforceable.”

BAAJA Section 1106 provides a “disturbing” runaround of scientific information: “Allowing agencies to ignore scientific evidence while making decisions makes no sense whatsoever, and there is no imaginable rationale for this except as a means of limiting the amount of information an agency must consider.”

BAAJA requires the Trump Council on Environmental Quality to establish rules for an AI-run permitting system within 60 days: “This is a massive task, and the 60-day timeline means that the Trump CEQ has probably already prepared it. It is highly concerning that this CEQ will establish ‘data quality standards’ that will be used to exclude information this administration doesn’t like.”

BAAJA eliminates the Clean Water Act provision used by governors to stop the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal; PennEast natural gas pipeline; and the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) Pipeline.

BAAJA’s extension from 5 to 10 years of certain Clean Water Act permits will “dramatically slow progress in reducing water pollution in states that take [effluent] permitting seriously.”

BAAJA “seriously weakens” the Endangered Species Act.

Section 1304 of BAAJA allows the federal government to transfer responsibilities of protecting an endangered species to any given state; “unless the state has a proven commitment to endangered species, that’s the end of the story.”

BAAJA effectively repeals the National Historic Preservation Act: the federal government “can wave a magic wand and decide to exempt any project from the NHPA and that decision is not reviewable in court.”

Download the full letter.

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.

Beatty v. Trump and DC Preservation League v. Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

If BAAJA passes, the Trump regime will have dangerous new legal tools to permit the threatened demolition of the Kennedy Center.

There are two separate cases against Trump’s renaming and proposed demolition of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts: trustee Rep. Joyce Beatty’s (D-Ohio) suit, and the DC Preservation League’s case, which are being coordinated but handled separately by Judge Christopher R. Cooper.

Beatty’s suit challenges the renaming of the center after Trump and its arbitrary closure, whereas the coalition of historic preservationists and architects led by the Preservation League seeks to stop Trump from “proceeding with any demolition, new construction, major reconstruction, major renovation, or major aesthetic transformation of the Kennedy Center buildings or grounds that exceeds statutory limits, circumvents mandatory federal review, or fails to comply with fundamental historic preservation and environmental laws.”

The Trump-picked board, with Trump as chair, has repeated voted to put Trump’s name on the building and close down the center. In May, when the judge ordered the name removed and the center reopened, the board relented on the name. But then the board voted again to put Trump’s name on the building and to close down the center, claiming it was in a state of extreme disrepair, so the judge issued another injunction in September against any renaming and ordered status reports on the purported repair effort while the center remains closed.

The DC Preservation League case would be severely weakened by BAAJA, as its first two and eighth counts rely on Section 106 of NHPA, and its third count on NEPA. Furthermore, the passage of BAAJA would greatly strengthen the Trump regime’s claim that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue.

BAAJA’s provisions would radically empower Trump to commence demolition without public consultation, under the guise of Congressionally appropriated renovations and repairs.

“Unless the NHPA provisions are fully removed from the permitting bill, the President will have virtually free rein to implement his pet projects in DC and nationwide, with no input from the public,” Greg Werkheiser, a lawyer representing the Preservation League, warned in a written interview with Hill Heat. Werkheiser questioned why Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who has been investigating Trump’s corrupt mismanagement of the Kennedy Center, is now “gutting the law that slows him down.”

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, which is backed by $45 billion from the One Big Brutal Bill Act (OBBBA).

“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 and District of Columbia 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.

UPDATE Nov. 2: “A federal judge has already stepped in more than once to stop unlawful actions there, catching rushed paperwork and misleading claims from federal officials,” the D.C. Preservation League said in a statement to Politico. “That only works because courts can still meaningfully review agency action, and the public still has a real voice in the process. BAAJA would weaken both.”

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.