One year into President Trump’s second term, the administration’s use of emergency powers has drawn intense legal scrutiny. Much of that attention has focused on high-profile actions such as National Guard deployments and unilateral tariffs, prompting bipartisan concerns about whether the president’s assertions of emergency authority are lawful and whether courts should more closely review actions taken in the name of crisis response.
Far less attention has been paid to the president’s declaration of an “energy emergency.” Issued on the first day of the term, the declaration directed federal agencies to prioritize fossil fuel energy production. One year later, that directive has resulted in new agency actions — and has fueled legal challenges.
This paper examines the energy emergency declaration, the policies and actions it has produced during its first year, and how they compare with historical uses of emergency authority. It also considers how courts may evaluate these actions if challenged. The analysis finds that the administration’s reliance on the energy emergency to fast-track environmental reviews for extractive projects and to override planned retirements of coal- and gas-fired power plants departs sharply from past practice, rests on shaky legal footing, and and threatens long-term changes to energy production.