You’ve got superfund questions? We’ve got superfund answers.

Click through below for more information about key superfund topics:

What is a climate superfund? | Superfund Laws Across The US | Superfunds & Gas Prices | Extreme Weather Costs | Attribution | Lawsuits | FEMA Updates

FAQ: What is a Climate Superfund?

  • Climate Superfund laws are designed to recover the costs of past and future climate change impacts and adaptation costs from the large polluters who extracted and refined fossil fuels during a covered period in the past. 

    The recovered costs are then dedicated to pay for the state’s climate impacts and related climate change adaptation solutions.

  • Minnesota’s bill is being authored by Rep. Athena Hollins and Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart. It is being introduced in both the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate during the week ending on March 7th.  The bill is Senate File 4126.

  • Minnesota’s Climate Superfund bill would do three things.

    First, it tasks the Minnesota State Auditor with calculating the cost of impacts our state has incurred (or will incur) from climate change due to past greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, during a certain period.

    Second, it assesses large fossil fuel companies for their share of those costs, based on their percentage of those past emissions.

    Third, it establishes a fund that fossil fuel companies pay into, that is managed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to fund both the costs of climate impacts and proactive climate adaptation and resilience solutions.

  • Minnesotans are and have been negatively affected by the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Drought, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, and other natural disasters are costing our state. We can prepare for those impacts by investing in adaptation measures, like flood prevention, stormwater management, or urban forestry. But all those solutions need public investment.

    Minnesota should pass this law because the corporations who made the mess should pay to clean it up.

  • No. Carbon taxes apply to future emissions, often with the goal of reducing them. The Climate Superfund focuses on past emissions, and the damages produced by them.

  • The Minnesota State Auditor calculates the costs, totalling the costs of climate impacts and adaptation investments that have been incurred and will be incurred due to GHG emissions during the covered period.

  • Other states expect the costs to be 5 to 75 billion dollars. We expect the costs to Minnesota will be tens of billions of dollars.

  • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines if a company is a responsible party and how much they are responsible for. It does this by determining which companies that do fossil fuel extraction and refining, and that have done business in Minnesota, are responsible for one billion metric tons of GHG emissions between 1995 to 2026.  If deemed responsible, the company would be liable for the share of the state’s total costs that is equal to the company’s share of the total GHG emissions from the covered period.  For example, if their extraction or refining produced 18% of the covered GHG emissions, they would be responsible for 18% of the total costs to Minnesota.

  • The law applies to companies that do business in Minnesota, that extract or refine coal, petroleum products, or fuel gases, and that are responsible for one billion metric tons of GHG emissions between 1995 to 2026.  The law would not apply to utilities, as they typically do not extract or refine fossil fuels.

  • It’s equivalent to:

    • 112 billion (112,523,911,331) gallons of gas consumed

    • 1.1 trillion (1,110,814,896,952) pounds of coal burned

    • Roughly 1/6th of the United States’ emissions in a year 

    • Roughly equal to Japan’s total emissions in 2024

  • The money will fund both the direct costs of climate impacts, like disaster response and recovery, and proactive climate adaptation projects, like disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, stormwater infrastructure, and resilience centers.

  • Vermont and New York have passed climate superfund laws, and are in the process of implementing them. Legislatures are also considering Climate Superfund bills in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia.

  • Yes, the Vermont law is being challenged by the three sets of litigants in two cases.  The first case was brought by industry groups, led by the American Petroleum Institute, and was joined by twenty-four states, led by West Virginia.  In a separate case, Vermont was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These cases are in the U.S. District Court of Vermont, a Second Circuit Court.


    The New York law is being challenged by similar litigants in two lawsuits. The first is a case that has merged industry groups, led by the American Petroleum Institute with twenty-two states, led by West Virginia. It is being litigated in the Northern District of New York. The second case was brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; it is in the Southern District of

  • No, Minnesota’s climate deception lawsuit is being brought on the basis of consumer protection law, not based on recovering costs from liable parties.

  • Yes, Climate Superfund laws are modeled on the federal Superfund law, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  That law imposes liability on parties responsible for, in whole or in part, the presence of hazardous substances at a site. It makes those parties responsible for a) government cleanup costs, damages to natural resources, the costs of certain health assessments, and injunctive relief (i.e., performing a cleanup) where a site may present an imminent and substantial endangerment.

  • No, this law is designed to recover costs from past GHG emissions. It does not set any rules for or recover any costs from any future GHG emissions.

  • No, gasoline prices are set by the market for gasoline. They rise and fall based on what drivers are willing to pay, not the fixed costs of gasoline production. Gas prices are optimized to be as high as the market will bear, i.e. as high as they can be, before they are so high that drivers decide to buy less gas.

back to the top

FAQ: Superfund Laws & Bills Across the U.S.

  • Yes, Vermont passed the Climate Superfund Act on May 10, 2024. It was allowed to become law without the signature of Republican Governor Phil Scott on May 30, 2024.  The law was amended in 2025, in response to recommendations from the state’s Agency of Natural Resources.

    The law is expected to conclude rulemaking by January 1, 2027. Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources may issue cost recovery demands six months after rulemaking is complete and make payments due six months after the demand is issued.  In other words, payments could be due as soon as January 1, 2028.

    New York passed the Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program in the State Assembly on June 8, 2024.  Governor Kathy Hochul signed the law on December 26, 2024, after negotiating chapter amendment revisions with the state legislature.  These changes were passed by the legislature on February 24, 2025 and signed into law on February 28, 2025.

    Following rulemaking, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation is expected to issue cost recovery demands by June 30, 2028 and to make payments due by December 31, 2028.

  • Yes, twelve other states have introduced climate superfund bills. Maryland has passed and New Hampshire has introduced bills to commission climate adaptation cost studies, like the one passed in Minnesota in 2023. These bills include:

back to the top

FAQ: Superfunds and Gas Prices

  • No, a superfund cost recovery assessment that is based on prior contributions to global greenhouse gases (GHGs) will not be passed along in gasoline prices.

  • Oil companies already charge the prices that maximize their profits. If an oil company were to raise its prices, it would make less, not more money because drivers would buy less gas.

    In other words, like other consumer goods, the price of gasoline is set by supply and demand.

  • No, a superfund assessment affects neither supply (i.e. the cost of production) or demand (how much people are willing to pay).

    The cost recovery assessment in the superfund is exclusively retrospective – i.e. based on past behavior. It does not add any cost to future extraction or refining.


    It is a one-time fixed cost not a marginal cost. As a fixed cost, it does not go up or down based on how much oil is extracted, refined, or sold going forward.

  • No, oil companies are already charging the profit maximizing price. If an oil company were to raise its prices more, it would make less, not more money because drivers would buy less gas.

  • Oil companies charge the profit maximizing price, not the lowest, least profitable price. They will not charge drivers the lowest possible price, if drivers are willing to pay a higher price. Like other consumer goods, the price of gasoline is set by supply and demand.

  • No, the proposed GHG superfund applies only to very large corporations with significant operating revenue and large, usually multinational, market capitalizations. These oil companies will very likely remain profitable. The addition to their costs from a one-time assessment in a single U.S. state would be relatively minor.

  • No, the GHG superfund aims to cover costs incurred from past behavior. These laws are not designed to lower fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.

back to the top

FAQ: Attributing Causes, Impacts, Liability, and Costs

  • According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce, “climate attribution is a scientific process for establishing the principal causes or physical explanation for observed climate conditions and phenomena.”


    It is an established scientific discipline developed from decades of international peer-reviewed research dating back to the 1990s. Its findings have been foundational to the comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change developed and refined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in each of its five Assessment Reports.

  • Yes, to figure out the total costs, we add up four things:

    1. The cost of past damages,

    2. The cost of past adaptation investments,

    3. The projected costs of future damages, and

    4. The projected costs of future adaptation investments.

  • The law would define what past and future impact and adaptation costs are to be counted.  It would calculate the costs related to public infrastructure, emergency response, public health, natural resources, biodiversity, agriculture, economic development, flood preparedness and safety, housing, and any other impact that the State Auditor, in consultation with the Commissioner of the MN Pollution Control Agency, determines is relevant.

    The Minnesota State Auditor would be responsible for researching all of these costs, totaling them, reporting them, and updating the total every four years, or sooner, if need be.

    The University of Minnesota has one the best climate impact models in the U.S.: Minnesota CliMAT (Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool). It is public and online, providing multi-scenario projections that predict precipitation and temperature averages down to the 4km/2.5mile scale across the state.

  • Yes, we are currently doing so. In 2023, in House File 3911, the Minnesota State Legislature commissioned a report on the projected costs in Minnesota of adaptation and resilience measures needed to mitigate the projected impacts of climate change. It is expected to be released by the MN Pollution Control Agency in the first quarter of 2026.

  • Yes, to assign liability, we simply need to know what the total GHG emissions were during the covered period for each very large polluter. These very large polluters are responsible for their portion of these GHG emissions. Total GHG emissions information is publicly available at carbonmajors.org. The totals are built using self-reported production data from each producing entity.

  • Yes, End-To-End Attribution provides a scientifically credible method for attributing particular impacts to particular polluters.

    It does this by modeling economic outcomes both with and without the impacts of a given polluter’s greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, it uses a control group to identify the added costs.

    The model is built using three steps. It starts by linking GHG emissions to climate impacts, like increases in global mean surface temperature (GMST), sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and local extreme climate events.  Second, it uses reduced-complexity climate models and pattern scaling to calculate resulting subnational (ex. state-level) changes. Finally, it uses an empirically derived damage function to calculate income impacts in the geographic region being analyzed.

    With the model in place, they simulate the actual historical change to GMST. Then, they run a counterfactual scenario subtracting an individual company’s GHG emissions from the total emissions. The resulting difference in modelled economic outcomes is the cost attributable to that polluter.

    This finding is evidence that can be used to address the ‘but for’ test that is used to determine causation in both tort and criminal law in the U.S.

  • The law would not require that the emissions were generated within Minnesota. Rather, the law would add up the total quantity of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2026 by polluters who a) extracted or refined coal, petroleum products, and fuel gases and b) who are responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions during that period.

    The damages and adaptation costs have to be in Minnesota; the extracting, refining, and emitting does not have to be in Minnesota.

back to the top

Extreme Weather Preparedness Costs in Minnesota

What Minnesota programs currently support disaster preparedness, response, and recovery?

In Minnesota, we fund extreme weather preparedness through a mix of state, local, federal, and Tribal programs, supplemented by property insurance, and out-of-pocket spending. These programs include:

  • The State of Minnesota has worked to protect its residents from extreme weather threats for over 150 years.

    Minnesota first provided disaster relief to its residents in 1873, when the legislature appropriated $5000 for "the relief of persons requiring medical, surgical, and other aid, occasioned by the late snow storm" on January 7-9, 1873.

    In 1919, in the wake of an influenza pandemic, the legislature formalized the state’s processes by creating a State Board of Relief. Comprised of the state’s Governor, Auditor, and Treasurer, the board was “authorized to take any measures necessary to prevent or avert any impending disaster which threatens to destroy life or property in this state, to grant relief or temporary assistance to communities in this state stricken by disease, flood, storm, fire or action of the elements…”.

    The legislature acted again in 1951 passing the Minnesota Civil Defense Act.  Though initially Cold War-oriented in its focus, it was amended in 1953 to integrate preparedness for “fire, flood, earthquake, or other natural causes.” It represented a maturation of the state’s response activities, as it intended that “all civil defense functions of this state be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions of the federal government, including its various departments and agencies, of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparations and use may be made of the nation's manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with any disaster that may occur.”

    Our contemporary statutory framework for disaster management, Minnesota Statute Chapter 12, was enacted through the Minnesota Emergency Management Act of 1996.  That law, as amended, establishes: 

    • General and Specific Authority of the Governor

    • Emergency Powers for the Governor 

    • Role of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

    • Emergency Declaration Authorities

    • Declarations Due to a Public Health Emergency 

    • Governor’s Powers to Provide Fast Emergency Aid

    Minnesota’s programs of individual and local government disaster assistance were enacted in 2008 and 2014, respectively, in Chapters 12A and 12B. Minnesota hosts at least 48 state-based programs that provide disaster assistance.

    Currently, these laws are implemented through Governor’s Executive Order 23-13. 

    Minnesota’s state-level disaster preparedness is led by the Department of Public Safety’s  (DPS) Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM).  That division is responsible for coordinating the development of State All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (SAMP) and the Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP), and for reviewing the emergency plans of the other state agencies.

    SAMP: The SAMP is the plan that ​​evaluates, profiles, and ranks natural and human-caused hazards affecting the State of Minnesota as determined by the frequency of events, economic impact, deaths, and injuries. It must be updated every five years, when it is reviewed and approved by FEMA. The 2024 plan is approved through March 17, 2029. Its content is built up from the county-level All-Hazard Mitigation Plans that are required of all U.S. counties by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.


    MEOP: The MEOP is the plan that provides the basis for a coordinated state response to a major disaster or emergency.  It is prepared for the officials responsible for emergency response in each agency, assigning their emergency responsibilities and articulating the plans for ongoing, coordinated operations.  Virtually all state agencies play a role in emergency response.

  • Minnesota’s Tribal and local governments play a role in every stage of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.  Examples of these roles include:

    Preparedness

    Planning

    Minnesota’s counties play a foundational role in disaster planning. Typically, these are multi-jurisdictional plans that incorporate the input of the cities, townships, school districts, and other local governments within the county. Tribal nations will sometimes create their own hazard mitigation plans, as the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa have.

    Capital Investments

    Minnesota’s local governments, cities, townships, counties, and school boards all make capital investments in buildings, transportation assets, and wastewater infrastructure. These are often funded using a mix of federal, state, and local funds, with a local portion that could include borrowing using general obligation bonds, property taxes and assessments, fees for services, a sales tax, or a utility franchise fee.

    Public Health

    Five cities, every county, and every Tribal nation in Minnesota operates a health department. These institutions play a vital role in preparing for and responding to health incidents from smoky air to blowdown events, from floods to extreme heat. All of these hazards impact our health.

    Response

    Emergency Services

    According to the Minnesota State Auditor, in 2024-2025, public safety services made up 40% of all municipal budget expenditures and nearly 22% of all county expenditures. It is often the largest single expense for cities. Additionally, counties may also provide emergency medical services through county hospitals, another significant cost.

    Recovery

    Solid Waste Disposal

    Cities often operate municipal waste services. Counties often run hazardous waste collection sites. Either sometimes offer recycling and/or composting, transfer services, or demolition landfills. All of these could play a vital role in the aftermath of an extreme weather event. 


    Redevelopment Planning and Assistance

    Local governments may also play a role in the long-term recovery of an impacted community. Though usually a supplement to state and federal recovery investments, local governments sometimes support economic development efforts focused on reviving damaged neighborhoods.

  • FEMA: The federal government’s disaster efforts are led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  It was created by executive order in 1979, defined and expanded by Congress by the Stafford Act in 1988, and consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.  Its operations were further reformed by acts of Congress in 2006 after Hurricane Katrina, in 2012 after Superstorm Sandy, and in 2018 after 2017’s  historic hurricane and wildfire seasons.

    Currently, the FEMA is being reorganized pursuant to presidential Executive Order 14180, signed on January 24, 2025. Its ‘Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council’ is directed to make recommendations to .  A second executive order, numbered 14239, aims to devolve disaster readiness to state and local governments and individuals.

    In March of 2025, the president impounded twenty FEMA grants to Minnesota withholding $80,778,514 in awarded funds.

    Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or Stafford Act, provides the current statutory framework for FEMA’s preparedness, response, and recovery efforts, including its use of presidential disaster declarations.  It also authorizes FEMA to administer the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), the largest (though not exclusive) source of federal funds for disaster response. Ninety-five percent of its obligated funds are for activities pursuant to a major disaster declaration, usually distributed through its three largest programs: 

    • Individual Assistance, which helps disaster survivors recover through supports like  housing assistance, unemployment assistance, crisis counseling, case management services, and legal services.

    • Public Assistance, which provides grants to state, tribal, territorial, local governments, and certain nonprofits for emergency protective measures, debris removal operations, and repair or replacement of damaged public infrastructure.

    • Hazard Mitigation Assistance, which funds mitigation and resiliency efforts focused on reducing the threat or impacts of future disasters.  It can include the construction of safe rooms, buyouts of frequently flooded properties, and retrofitting of facilities.

    • Pre-Disaster Mitigation: The president may also set aside 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of funding awarded to seven Stafford Act programs for the purpose of pre-disaster mitigation.  One example of this is the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program.  Introduced in 2020, the BRIC program has been focused on incentivizing: 

      • Natural hazard risk reduction activities that mitigate risk to public infrastructure and disadvantaged communities

      • Projects that incorporate nature-based solutions

      • Projects that enhance climate resilience and adaptation

      • Adoption and enforcement of the latest published editions of building codes

    • Flood Insurance: FEMA also administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and two of its major grant programs: the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program, which is focused on mitigating flood risks pre-disaster and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Swift Current program, which is focused on mitigating flood risks post-disaster, to prevent future damage.

    Other Agencies: Other federal agencies also provide other, non-DRF-funded disaster response and recovery assistance including programs like these:

    • Small Business Administration (SBA): Disaster Loan Program, which provides federally subsidized loans to repair or replace homes, personal property, or businesses that sustained uninsured damages 

    • Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program, which can be used to meet a wide range of unmet disaster needs

    • Department of Transportation (DOT): Federal-Aid Highway Emergency Relief Program: which provides grant funds for the repair and reconstruction of roads on the federal highway system

    • Department of Agriculture (USDA): Agriculture and Rural Assistance has multiple programs that provide food, housing, and financial assistance, primarily to agricultural and rural communities

    • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): Emergency Assistance performs flood-fighting, and other emergency response and provides assistance to repair damaged flood control works (e.g., levees) and federally constructed hurricane or shore protection projects

    These programs are supported by federal, state, and local taxes.

back to the top

FAQ on Superfund Lawsuits

  • Yes, both the Vermont and New York laws are being challenged in federal court by three sets of litigants: industry groups, a coalition of states, and the current presidential administration.

  • In December 2024, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (API) challenged the Vermont law as unconstitutional and preempted under the Clean Air Act. In May of 2025, West Virginia and 23 other states intervened in support of the Chamber and API.  (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Moore in Docket # 2:24-cv-01513.)

    On May 1, 2025, the Trump administration, through the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also charged that the Vermont lawsuit was unconstitutional. (See U.S. vs Vermont in Docket # 2:25-cv-00463.)


    Nonprofit groups, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont and the Conservation Law Foundation, intervened in support of the law in both Vermont cases, which the Vermont courts allowed. The parties have asked the court to resolve the case based on the law (i.e. without a trial), and those requests are fully briefed, but not yet decided.

    These cases are in the U.S. District Court of Vermont, a Second Circuit Court.

  • In New York, the West Virginia and Chamber cases are being heard in the Northern District of New York (NDNY). The Trump administration’s lawsuit is being heard in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). They started after the Vermont cases and have not proceeded as far through the process.

    On February 6, 2025, West Virginia, with 21 other states, filed a lawsuit in the NDNY challenging the New York climate superfund law. (See West Virginia v. James in Docket # 1:25-cv-00168.)

    On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, API, the National Mining Association, and the Business Council of New York also filed a lawsuit challenging the New York law, but they filed it in the SDNY. (See Chamber of Commerce v. James in Docket # 1:25-cv-01738.) The State of New York made a motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of New York, as the West Virginia case was already there. The Southern District granted this request on September 8, 2025. The West Virginia and Chamber of Commerce cases are now consolidated in the NDNY. 

    There, the parties are still working through procedural motions. On October 8, 2025, the State of New York requested that the plaintiff’s case be dismissed. (See Chamber of Commerce vs. James in Docket # 1:25-cv-01307.) 

    On May 1, 2025, the Trump Administration brought a lawsuit challenging the New York law. This case, United States vs. New York in Docket # 1:25-cv-03656, was filed in the SDNY. The State of New York attempted to get the case transferred to the Northern District. The SDNY denied that motion on August 6, 2025. Environmental organizations requested to intervene in the case to defend the law. The SDNY denied that motion on October 29, 2025. The Department of Justice has filed for summary judgment, which the parties have briefed. This motion is unresolved.

    Like the U.S. District Court of Vermont, both of these New York Districts are also a part of the Second Circuit Court.

  • The claims in all of these cases are similar.

    They rest on the premise that the Climate Superfund laws are de facto greenhouse gas emission regulations. As such, one of the claims asserts, the laws are “preempted” by the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that greenhouse gas emissions are pollution under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because of that, states can’t step in and impose their own regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from other states.


    Other claims raise other constitutional arguments as to why states cannot make cost assessments for climate change harms. For example, the claims allege that these laws violate principles under the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Takings Clause, and others. The claims assert that, by imposing cost recovery for activities such as fossil fuel extraction and use that occurred in other states, these laws are causing harm to interstate commerce; they also argue that, because the laws are retroactive by imposing cost recovery for activities that have already occurred, they are depriving fossil fuel companies of their property without adequate due process.

  • These claims will live or die based on whether the courts accept the characterization of the laws as asserted by the Plaintiffs, or whether the courts independently assess the structure and intent of the laws themselves. The laws, as written, are (in the words of Vermont):

    valid exercise[s] of [the States’] traditional authority to raise revenue, protect the health, safety, and welfare of [their] citizens, and mitigate environmental harms inside [their] borders. [They] do not conflict with federal law or policy, regulate fossil fuel emissions, or punish fossil fuel producers. [They] establish[] a reasonable framework for assessing costs and allocating a portion of those costs to those who bear responsibility for them. Plaintiffs’ allegations to the contrary are wrong on the law and rest on speculation about how the Act[s] might be implemented.

    The climate superfund bills are not backdoor attempts at regulating greenhouse gas emissions and so the challenges against the laws should fail. “Should” is the operative word here, because in one case the Second Circuit (where the New York and Vermont cases are being heard) adopted the mischaracterization of claims in a climate deception lawsuit and dismissed those claims. So it is never certain with legal challenges which way a court will rule, but the laws are on solid legal footing and ultimately should be upheld.

  • It is impossible to say exactly how long these cases will take, as they could be appealed to the Second Circuit and, then, the U.S. Supreme Court. Should these steps be taken, the process will likely last for, at least, two more years.

    In the meantime, unless courts intervene, Vermont and New York can continue to implement the laws they have enacted.

  • The claims raised against the superfund laws are similar to those raised by the fossil fuel defendants in Minnesota’s (and other states’) complaint against them for climate deception. The Minnesota climate deception case, brought by Attorney General Keith Ellison, seeks to hold API, Exxon, and Koch Industries accountable for intentionally deceiving the public about climate change science in order to protect their profits. That case aims to stop that deceptive and illegal behavior and ask the court to require the fossil fuel defendants to pay back ill-gotten profits based on this past deception. 

    The defendants in Minnesota’s case, similar to the Trump Administration and the industry trade associations in the climate superfund challenges, mischaracterized Minnesota’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. As such, they claimed, it should be heard in federal court rather than state court where it was brought and it is preempted by the Clean Air Act and should be dismissed (among other reasons). After many years of litigation, the courts all disagreed with the defendants’ attempt to mischaracterize the claims and the case was heard in state court. Defendants tried to get it dismissed from state court on preemption and other grounds, but the Ramsey County District Court disagreed and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The U.S. Supreme Court recently, on February 23, 2026, agreed to hear related claims brought by Colorado counties, so there is still a possibility that a decision in that case could affect Minnesota’s case.

back to the top

Updates on the Federal Emergency Management Agency


Overview: Since January 24, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been undergoing a full-scale review initiated by Executive Order 14180.  The order created the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council, a body ordered to “advise the President on all recommended changes related to FEMA to best serve the national interest.” The council was ordered to hold its first public meeting within 90 days of the order and to submit its report to the President within 180 days after that meeting. The report has not been released.

In the meantime, the president has repeatedly floated the idea that FEMA should be abolished, that its responsibilities should be devolved to the states. FEMA itself has experienced delays in disaster response, wholesale suspension of investments in disaster prevention, delays in reimbursing recovery costs, agency leadership turnover, large-scale staff departures, and repeated rulings that its impoundment of funds is in violation of federal court orders.

Timeline: This timeline sketches out noteworthy moments in the Trump administration’s devolution of FEMA to the states.

  • January 2, 2025: The nonpartisan Congressional Research Offices finds that:

    • Disasters in the United States have become more frequent, severe, and expensive in recent years.

    • They have increased 61% since the enactment of the Stafford Act in 1988, from an average of 39 disaster declarations per fiscal year in the law’s first decade to an average of 63 in the most recent ten fiscal years.

    • Declarations have increased approximately 150% when compared to the first decade of FEMA’s existence (FY1979-1988), which averaged 25 major disaster declarations per fiscal year.

    • Government agencies and scientific experts expect these trends to continue due to climate change and increased development and population in areas vulnerable to hazards.

    • These factors have intensified demands on the resources, programs, and personnel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

    • Consequences include attrition and staffing shortages, strained operational efforts, and insufficient disaster relief funds.

  • January 7, 2025: The Palisades wildfire starts near Los Angeles, CA, eventually killing two dozen people and destroying more than 15,000 homes and businesses.

  • January 24, 2025: The president signals his intention to issue an executive order related to FEMA. While touring a disaster zone in North Carolina, the president says "I think we recommend that FEMA go away."

  • January 24, 2025: During the same tour in North Carolina, the president conditions FEMA support for California on the state changing its voting laws and water management policies. 

  • January 24, 2025: In California, he reiterates his intention to "begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA — or maybe getting rid of FEMA."

  • January 24, 2025: The president signs Executive Order 14180 creating the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council and ordering a full-scale review of FEMA.

  • January 27, 2025: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs federal agencies to impound “all federal financial assistance”. 

  • January 28, 2025: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joins 22 other state attorneys general in suing the presidential administration for its impoundment of congressional authorized funds.

  • January 29, 2025: OMB rescinds its January 27, 2025 memorandum.

  • January 31, 2025: The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issues a temporary restraining order on presidential impoundments subject to the 23 state attorneys general lawsuit.

  • February 28, 2025: In the OMB case, Attorney General Ellison and 22 other attorneys general filed a second for enforcement, focused specifically on the impoundment of FEMA funds.

  • March 6, 2025: The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issues preliminary injunction on the presidential impoundments.

  • March 24, 2025: Minnesota Management and Budget shared a list of twenty FEMA grants to Minnesota, totalling $80,778,514, that the presidential administration had impounded.

  • March 25, 2025: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joins 22 other state attorneys general in asking the District of Rhode Island to enforce its March 6th injunction by ordering the release of the still impounded FEMA funds.

  • April 3, 2025: The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island finds that FEMA had violated its January 31, 2025 temporary restraining order by continuing to impound funds to at least 19 states.

  • May 7, 2025: Cameron Hamilton, the Acting Administrator of FEMA testified before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security saying, “I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” 

  • May 8, 2025: Cameron Hamilton was fired as Acting Administrator of FEMA. David Richardson is appointed to replace him.

  • May 20, 2025: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council’s first meeting was held on May 20, 2025, making the report due by November 16, 2025.

  • May 21, 2025: The NY Times reports that roughly one-quarter of FEMA’s full time staff have left the agency including roughly one-fifth of the coordinating officers who manage large-scale disaster response. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had also lost about one-fifth of its staff including hundreds working for the National Weather Service.

  • June 10, 2025: The president announced his intention to wind down FEMA, stating that “after the hurricane season we’ll start phasing it out.” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem said that FEMA “fundamentally needs to go away as it exists”. The president states that “We’re going to give out less money. We’re going to give it out directly. It’ll be from the president’s office.”

  • June 11, 2025: The president again indicates his intention to devolve FEMA’s responsibilities to the states saying, “if a certain state, as an example, gets hit by a hurricane… the governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.”

  • June 18, 2025: DHS Secretary Noem issues a directive that all DHS expenditures over $100,000 must be approved by her directly. 

  • June 20, 2025: As of this date, since February, the president had denied 6 of 10 disaster declaration requests he had received from Democratic governors, but approved 14 of 15 of these requests that he had received from Republican governors.

  • July 4, 2025: Central Texas experiences a series of flash floods that leave 137 dead, including 25 campers and 2 counselors at Camp Mystic.

  • July 9, 2025: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council held its second meeting.

  • July 10, 2026: CNN reports that Sect. Noem’s $100,000 approval policies led to delays in the Central Texas flood disasters including not pre-positioning Urban Search and Rescue crews, delays in aerial imaging for search and rescue, and the understaffing of FEMA’s disaster call center.

  • July 30, 2025: By this day, a backlog of 530 DHS spending requests were awaiting Sect. Noem’s approval, while another 1,500 requests had not reached her as they were awaiting review by lower-level officials.

  • August 28, 2025: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council held its third meeting.

  • September 2, 2025: The U.S. Government Accountability Office releases its first in a series of reports on FEMA’s response challenges finding that “recent FEMA workforce reductions may reduce how effective a federal response could be in future high-impact disasters.”

  • September 19, 2025: The Carnegie Foundation’s Emissary reports that the presidential administration is systematically delaying disaster declarations, slowing state reimbursements, and defunding adaptation investments.

  • September 27, 2025: FEMA defunds 12 states that did not award electoral votes to Donald Trump in 2024, impounding $233 million in disaster relief funds.

  • September 30, 2025: The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island blocks FEMA from defunding the 12 states in its September 27 order.

  • October 24, 2025: The president approved disaster declaration requests from three states that awarded him electoral votes in 2024, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, and denied requests from three states that did not, Vermont, Illinois and Maryland. He approved a request from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.

  • November 17, 2025: David Richardson, Acting Administrator of FEMA, resigns effective November 30, 2025.

  • November 19, 2026: The Associated Press reported that DHS Secretary Noem’s office cut the report from over 160 pages to roughly 20.

  • December 1, 2025: Karen Evans starts as Acting Administrator of FEMA.

  • December 10, 2025: CNN reported that they had obtained a leaked version of the report. 

  • December 11, 2025: The council’s fourth meeting was meant to include “a presentation of the draft final report from the Final Report Subcommittee”. The meeting was cancelled the same day. 

  • December 11, 2025: The U. S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts found that the cancellation of funds for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program was unlawful.

  • December 15, 2025: Greg Phillips, a leading election fraud conspiracy theorist, starts appointment to lead FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery, the agency’s lead in delivering response and recovery services.

  • December 15, 2025: The Department of Energy argued to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that “consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible, including because it can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy considerations.”

  • December 31, 2025: FEMA fires approximately 50 members of the Cadre of On-Call Response and Recovery (CORE) teams, the frontline staff that serve on the ground during and immediately after a disaster.

back to the top