This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

It was the biggest about face in President Donald Trump's first two weeks in office, and it happened with lightning speed. On Monday night, the White House Budget Office issued a memo ordering a freeze on federal funds that caused mass confusion and chaos across the country, with fears of its potential to disrupt a massive segment of federal spending that's relied on by local government, schools, and police departments. On Tuesday, twenty two, Democratic attorneys general, including those from New York and California, sued the Trump administration for what they said was a clearly illegal action.

It was the biggest about face in President Donald Trump's first two weeks in office, and it happened with lightning speed. On Monday night, the White House Budget Office issued a memo ordering a freeze on federal funds that caused mass confusion and chaos across the country, with fears of its potential to disrupt a massive segment of federal spending that's relied on by local government, schools, and police departments. On Tuesday, twenty two, Democratic attorneys general, including those from New York and California, sued the Trump administration for what they said was a clearly illegal action.

Not only does this administration's new policy but people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional. The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom.

Not only does this administration's new policy but people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional. The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom.

He's a president, he has a great deal of authority, but he's not a king. We have a democratic structure with shared authority through different branches between the federal government and the states. He can act within his authority, but not outside of it. He has acted far outside of his authority.

He's a president, he has a great deal of authority, but he's not a king. We have a democratic structure with shared authority through different branches between the federal government and the states. He can act within his authority, but not outside of it. He has acted far outside of his authority.

Here, a DC federal judge put a temporary block on the funding freeze, and on Wednesday, the White House rescinded the memo ordering the freeze, but said it was not rescinding the federal funding freeze. A Rhode Island federal judge call that a difference without a distinction and said he'll still issue a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from freezing federal funds. Joining me is Alex Hontos, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney and a former Justice Department attorney. Alex how broad was the scope of this order?

Here, a DC federal judge put a temporary block on the funding freeze, and on Wednesday, the White House rescinded the memo ordering the freeze, but said it was not rescinding the federal funding freeze. A Rhode Island federal judge call that a difference without a distinction and said he'll still issue a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from freezing federal funds. Joining me is Alex Hontos, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney and a former Justice Department attorney. Alex how broad was the scope of this order?

So the omb order issued on Monday by the administration was exceptionally broad, covering all all forms of federal assistance, with the exception of a few carve outs. So Medicare was carved out, for example, but notably Medicaid was not mentioned. So it covered on its face trillions of dollars of federal spending. That's about as broad as you can get.

So the omb order issued on Monday by the administration was exceptionally broad, covering all all forms of federal assistance, with the exception of a few carve outs. So Medicare was carved out, for example, but notably Medicaid was not mentioned. So it covered on its face trillions of dollars of federal spending. That's about as broad as you can get.

In his first administration, Trump issued a Muslim travel ban, and it took three tries, three different versions before it got approval from the Supreme Court. Is there a way for him to rewrite this and try again?

In his first administration, Trump issued a Muslim travel ban, and it took three tries, three different versions before it got approval from the Supreme Court. Is there a way for him to rewrite this and try again?

Well, I certainly expect that this will not be the end of the administration's efforts to root out programs that it believes should not be in federal spending policies, procedures, that kind of thing. So I think they're going to try again. But what is striking about this is instead of targeting specific programs, they did a blanket pause. And you know, you would do a census of specific programs, first identify programs that were perhaps against your policy objectives, and then work those programs, And that's not the angle that they came at this from. They might change that, though, and we might see that next, and in fact that's probably what is coming next, So then.

Well, I certainly expect that this will not be the end of the administration's efforts to root out programs that it believes should not be in federal spending policies, procedures, that kind of thing. So I think they're going to try again. But what is striking about this is instead of targeting specific programs, they did a blanket pause. And you know, you would do a census of specific programs, first identify programs that were perhaps against your policy objectives, and then work those programs, And that's not the angle that they came at this from. They might change that, though, and we might see that next, and in fact that's probably what is coming next, So then.

They would actually have to do some work to figure that out.

They would actually have to do some work to figure that out.

Yes, that's right. So there is going to need to be a census, if you will, within the federal government, kind of a cataloging of the programs. And boy, are there a lot of them out there, thousands of programs and offices and grants and contracts and things of that nature that will need to be assessed, analyzed and then sort of reviewed for whether they're compliant or not compliant with the administration's objectives. So it's a herculean effort.

Yes, that's right. So there is going to need to be a census, if you will, within the federal government, kind of a cataloging of the programs. And boy, are there a lot of them out there, thousands of programs and offices and grants and contracts and things of that nature that will need to be assessed, analyzed and then sort of reviewed for whether they're compliant or not compliant with the administration's objectives. So it's a herculean effort.

Let's talk about the legal problems with the order that the Democratic Attorney's General and most legal experts have identified. The legislative branch is supposed to be the branch that decides on spending. Is that the basic problem.

Let's talk about the legal problems with the order that the Democratic Attorney's General and most legal experts have identified. The legislative branch is supposed to be the branch that decides on spending. Is that the basic problem.

That's one of the problems that's right. So under the constitution, the power of the purse that is the legislative branch's purview, not the executive branch. The executive branch is supposed to execute the laws. Congress gets to dictate where funds are appropriated and stand up certain programs. So that is one of the fundamental challenges that the administration will have if it's trying to defend this kind of behavior in court. Courts are going to be asking questions about separation of powers and authority. There's also you lawyers in MySpace this week had a dust off the Empowerment Control Act of nineteen seventy four and kind of go back to the Nixon era and look through the lens of whether the president has an authority issue when it comes to spending money that Griss has directed be spent, and certainly the legislative branch. Congress believes that when it says to spend money, the president has to do that, and so there are a whole host constitutional, statutory of potential hurdles that the administration is really going to have to get around to effectuate this policy. And those are not even taking into account the political consequences of some of these actions. And you saw that occur, you know, shortly after the Omb memo was issued, when red state governors, Blue state governors, we're both howling about what this might mean for state budgets. You know, large for profit clients of mine were very concerned about what this might mean for them. Higher education and university clients of mine were equally concerned. So you actually had a broad base of the American economy that really was concerned. So you have multiple challenges if you're the administration. One is a straight legal challenge and that is a fraud area and that will be played out in the courts principally. But the other is a policy and kind of political issue related to this. And I think they bid off more than they can chew here in rolling this out in the way they did, because they certainly galvanized opposition in an incredibly fast way. I'm not so sure that the honeymoon for this administration is over, but it might be and this might be the beginning of the end, at least of the honeymoon for the administration.

That's one of the problems that's right. So under the constitution, the power of the purse that is the legislative branch's purview, not the executive branch. The executive branch is supposed to execute the laws. Congress gets to dictate where funds are appropriated and stand up certain programs. So that is one of the fundamental challenges that the administration will have if it's trying to defend this kind of behavior in court. Courts are going to be asking questions about separation of powers and authority. There's also you lawyers in MySpace this week had a dust off the Empowerment Control Act of nineteen seventy four and kind of go back to the Nixon era and look through the lens of whether the president has an authority issue when it comes to spending money that Griss has directed be spent, and certainly the legislative branch. Congress believes that when it says to spend money, the president has to do that, and so there are a whole host constitutional, statutory of potential hurdles that the administration is really going to have to get around to effectuate this policy. And those are not even taking into account the political consequences of some of these actions. And you saw that occur, you know, shortly after the Omb memo was issued, when red state governors, Blue state governors, we're both howling about what this might mean for state budgets. You know, large for profit clients of mine were very concerned about what this might mean for them. Higher education and university clients of mine were equally concerned. So you actually had a broad base of the American economy that really was concerned. So you have multiple challenges if you're the administration. One is a straight legal challenge and that is a fraud area and that will be played out in the courts principally. But the other is a policy and kind of political issue related to this. And I think they bid off more than they can chew here in rolling this out in the way they did, because they certainly galvanized opposition in an incredibly fast way. I'm not so sure that the honeymoon for this administration is over, but it might be and this might be the beginning of the end, at least of the honeymoon for the administration.

How much discretion does a president have not to spend the money that's been appropriated by Congress? I mean, is that a settled issue?

How much discretion does a president have not to spend the money that's been appropriated by Congress? I mean, is that a settled issue?

Yeah, so it depends the lawyer's favorite answer. Right, So, certain programs direct the expenditure of funds. If a statute directs the expenditure of funds, the president's ability to not spend those funds is significantly constrained. You know, there can be some timing issues and that kind of thing where the president might have some flexibility, but if the president is directed to spend, that's weak round for the president to try to defend and say I don't have to spend now. In other types of programs where an appropriation is made, say to an agency the Defense Department, to further some general objective or innovation or something like that, where the Congress has not been crystal clear about who and what and why the expenditures will go out, the executive might claim to have more authority to have discretion to choose who gets those grant awards, for example, or contract awards. But there are still regulatory overlays that would apply even in that context as well. So while there is discretion at some level, it's cabined in many ways by statute of general applicability. So on the government contract side, there's a Competition and Contracting Act, where basically competition for government contract towards is the general rule. Another example is the Administrative Procedures Act, where if the agency is going to do something and it falls within the purview of the APA, it has to do it in a certain way. Right. So you have these general statutes that may confine presidential executive discretion. You have the specific statutes that may develop or create a particular program that would have limitations on presidential discretion. And you have both of those things that will be I think used by certainly adversaries of the administration's attempts, those affected by the administration's attempts to change grants or cancel grants. They will be leveraged, and there will be arguments in court about whether, in a given context or the issuance of a memo, perhaps the president overstepped.

Yeah, so it depends the lawyer's favorite answer. Right, So, certain programs direct the expenditure of funds. If a statute directs the expenditure of funds, the president's ability to not spend those funds is significantly constrained. You know, there can be some timing issues and that kind of thing where the president might have some flexibility, but if the president is directed to spend, that's weak round for the president to try to defend and say I don't have to spend now. In other types of programs where an appropriation is made, say to an agency the Defense Department, to further some general objective or innovation or something like that, where the Congress has not been crystal clear about who and what and why the expenditures will go out, the executive might claim to have more authority to have discretion to choose who gets those grant awards, for example, or contract awards. But there are still regulatory overlays that would apply even in that context as well. So while there is discretion at some level, it's cabined in many ways by statute of general applicability. So on the government contract side, there's a Competition and Contracting Act, where basically competition for government contract towards is the general rule. Another example is the Administrative Procedures Act, where if the agency is going to do something and it falls within the purview of the APA, it has to do it in a certain way. Right. So you have these general statutes that may confine presidential executive discretion. You have the specific statutes that may develop or create a particular program that would have limitations on presidential discretion. And you have both of those things that will be I think used by certainly adversaries of the administration's attempts, those affected by the administration's attempts to change grants or cancel grants. They will be leveraged, and there will be arguments in court about whether, in a given context or the issuance of a memo, perhaps the president overstepped.

Other presidents have tried to get around this very issue before, have any of them been successful?

Other presidents have tried to get around this very issue before, have any of them been successful?

I don't know that any other president has done what the president tried to do this week, and the idea of sort of stopping everything, which is a bit overblown June, but not that much overblown that I can't think of a time when another president has tried.

I don't know that any other president has done what the president tried to do this week, and the idea of sort of stopping everything, which is a bit overblown June, but not that much overblown that I can't think of a time when another president has tried.

To do that.

To do that.

I do think there's some interesting parallels, and you know, think about a little bit during the Biden administration. The Biden administration somewhat famously tried to use federal contracts as a vehicle for policy objectives. So, you know, very common example is the federal contractor vaccine mandate, where the Biden administration was trying to require that anyone who was a federal contractor had to have a vaccinated workforce. Another example that President Biden tried was the government contractor minimum wage. Now, both of those efforts were attacked in the courts by constituencies affected contractors states that basically said the president lacked the authority to take those steps. And there's a bit of a mixed bag, but by and large, the courts agreed with those challenges and said that President Biden didn't have the authority to use sort of contractual terms with governmental counterparties contractors, for example, to implement those policy objectives that existing law did not allow him to go that far, and so I think you're going to see a lot of that authority that was used against President Biden's initiatives, or at least some of his initiatives, sort to turn back around now as a basis to challenge this and future efforts by the Trump administration to sort of do the same thing, but just to effectuate different policies.

I do think there's some interesting parallels, and you know, think about a little bit during the Biden administration. The Biden administration somewhat famously tried to use federal contracts as a vehicle for policy objectives. So, you know, very common example is the federal contractor vaccine mandate, where the Biden administration was trying to require that anyone who was a federal contractor had to have a vaccinated workforce. Another example that President Biden tried was the government contractor minimum wage. Now, both of those efforts were attacked in the courts by constituencies affected contractors states that basically said the president lacked the authority to take those steps. And there's a bit of a mixed bag, but by and large, the courts agreed with those challenges and said that President Biden didn't have the authority to use sort of contractual terms with governmental counterparties contractors, for example, to implement those policy objectives that existing law did not allow him to go that far, and so I think you're going to see a lot of that authority that was used against President Biden's initiatives, or at least some of his initiatives, sort to turn back around now as a basis to challenge this and future efforts by the Trump administration to sort of do the same thing, but just to effectuate different policies.

During his campaign, vowed to abolish the Empowerment Law altogether. Would that eliminate his problems here or not?

During his campaign, vowed to abolish the Empowerment Law altogether. Would that eliminate his problems here or not?

It doesn't eliminate his problems. He's got two problems on that. One is the Empowerment Statute itself, so he would have to get that repealed, which would require Congressional action more substantially changed. So that's a big if. But even if that could happen June, you still have constitutional arguments that fundamentally the power of the purse is a core legislative function and the idea that the legislature appropriates funds and decides how much is spent in the United States, that's pretty clear, I think from the text of the Constitution that's what that's about. And if it's possible for a president to accept the appropriation from Congress and just not spend it at all. That seems to significantly erode the constitutional protection afforded by the spending claus.

It doesn't eliminate his problems. He's got two problems on that. One is the Empowerment Statute itself, so he would have to get that repealed, which would require Congressional action more substantially changed. So that's a big if. But even if that could happen June, you still have constitutional arguments that fundamentally the power of the purse is a core legislative function and the idea that the legislature appropriates funds and decides how much is spent in the United States, that's pretty clear, I think from the text of the Constitution that's what that's about. And if it's possible for a president to accept the appropriation from Congress and just not spend it at all. That seems to significantly erode the constitutional protection afforded by the spending claus.

I'm sure this issue is going to come up again. Thanks so much, Alex. That's Alex Hontos of Dorsey and Whitney coming up climate whiplash after Trump's executive orders. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.

I'm sure this issue is going to come up again. Thanks so much, Alex. That's Alex Hontos of Dorsey and Whitney coming up climate whiplash after Trump's executive orders. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.

We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it. With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate.

We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it. With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate.

In the dizzy number of executive orders President Donald Trump signed on Day one, where a series of orders laying the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of US energy policy, putting the weight of the federal government behind fossil fuel production and pulling back from the fight against climate change. Trump insists his drill baby, drill policy will bring down prices and inflation.

In the dizzy number of executive orders President Donald Trump signed on Day one, where a series of orders laying the groundwork for a sweeping overhaul of US energy policy, putting the weight of the federal government behind fossil fuel production and pulling back from the fight against climate change. Trump insists his drill baby, drill policy will bring down prices and inflation.

It just works that way.

It just works that way.

I mean, it just economically works that way.

I mean, it just economically works that way.

When the oil comes down, it'll bring down prices. Then you won't have and then the interest rates.

When the oil comes down, it'll bring down prices. Then you won't have and then the interest rates.

Will come down.

Will come down.

My guest is an expert in environmental law, Pat Parento, a professor the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Let's start. Trump declared a national energy emergency. What does that allow him to do?

My guest is an expert in environmental law, Pat Parento, a professor the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Let's start. Trump declared a national energy emergency. What does that allow him to do?

Well? A declaration of a national emergency just generally does quote unlock certain provisions of federal law. But it's a statute by statute kind of thing. The declaration itself doesn't do anything. It's a predicate for what's to come next. So now you have to go through individual statutes. For example, offshore oil and gas leasing that's governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if it's an online oil and gas development, the drill, baby drill, the mantra that's governed by a law known as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and so on. So the order themselves are a clarion call, right, and a policy announcement clearly, and a direction that the administration is going to go. But legally it's going to go statute by statute, and in fact, project by project, whether you're talking about a gas pipeline or an oil pipeline or an LNG terminal or whatever, it's going to go project by project, law by law.

Well? A declaration of a national emergency just generally does quote unlock certain provisions of federal law. But it's a statute by statute kind of thing. The declaration itself doesn't do anything. It's a predicate for what's to come next. So now you have to go through individual statutes. For example, offshore oil and gas leasing that's governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if it's an online oil and gas development, the drill, baby drill, the mantra that's governed by a law known as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and so on. So the order themselves are a clarion call, right, and a policy announcement clearly, and a direction that the administration is going to go. But legally it's going to go statute by statute, and in fact, project by project, whether you're talking about a gas pipeline or an oil pipeline or an LNG terminal or whatever, it's going to go project by project, law by law.

He also ordered quarterly meetings of a committee of cabinet level officials known as the gods Squad. What is the god Squad? They've only met a handful of times over the past four.

He also ordered quarterly meetings of a committee of cabinet level officials known as the gods Squad. What is the god Squad? They've only met a handful of times over the past four.

Decades, right, And I've been the only lawyer who has appeared in all four of the God Squad proceeding. So you're talking to me.

Decades, right, And I've been the only lawyer who has appeared in all four of the God Squad proceeding. So you're talking to me.

I don't know if that's good or bad. I'm trying to throw out.

I don't know if that's good or bad. I'm trying to throw out.

I don't know. I can tell you this. The Endangered Species Committee is not a standing committee. Okay, it doesn't meet quarterly or regularly at all. In in fact, it can only meet as the Endangered Species Committee when there is an application in front of it that meets really specific statutory criteria that I had a hand in drafting, And the most basic one is there can be no exemption process unless there's what's called an irreconcilable conflict between a specific project. Maybe it's a water project, a highway project, timber sale projects. But there has to be a really specific project federally authorized or undertaken, and it then has to conflict with the commands of the Endangered Species fact, meaning the activity in question has to jeopardize That's the term the continued survival of a listed species endangered or threatened. So we don't have anything like that. As you point out, there hasn't been one since the spotted owl god Squad proceeding where I was the owl's lawyer, if you will, because I was the special counsel appointed to the Fish and Wildlife Service to present the case for preserving the owl's habitat to the god Squad. So there hasn't been one since nineteen ninety two, is my point. And there is nothing on the horizon that would give rise to convening the god Squad.

I don't know. I can tell you this. The Endangered Species Committee is not a standing committee. Okay, it doesn't meet quarterly or regularly at all. In in fact, it can only meet as the Endangered Species Committee when there is an application in front of it that meets really specific statutory criteria that I had a hand in drafting, And the most basic one is there can be no exemption process unless there's what's called an irreconcilable conflict between a specific project. Maybe it's a water project, a highway project, timber sale projects. But there has to be a really specific project federally authorized or undertaken, and it then has to conflict with the commands of the Endangered Species fact, meaning the activity in question has to jeopardize That's the term the continued survival of a listed species endangered or threatened. So we don't have anything like that. As you point out, there hasn't been one since the spotted owl god Squad proceeding where I was the owl's lawyer, if you will, because I was the special counsel appointed to the Fish and Wildlife Service to present the case for preserving the owl's habitat to the god Squad. So there hasn't been one since nineteen ninety two, is my point. And there is nothing on the horizon that would give rise to convening the god Squad.

One promise he made repeatedly during the campaign was drill, baby drill, And in his inaugural address he said, we will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.

One promise he made repeatedly during the campaign was drill, baby drill, And in his inaugural address he said, we will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.

Right.

Right.

So here's the fact. That's a fact free statement, right. So the fact is the United States is the largest producer and exporter of oil and gas on the planet, and oil and gas development, contrary to a lot of climate activists, tremendously exponentially expanded under Biden in the last four years. So A, there is no energy emergency. B As to drill, baby drill, here's the data, twenty five million acres of federal lands are under lease already not being developed, twenty five million acres of public lands. Secondly, there are nine thousand drilling permits that have been issued. They're not being developed either. Why not because there's a glut of oiling gas on the market. Why are gasoline prices at the pump the lowest they've been in seventy years? You're that right, seventy years. Not since the nineteen fifties have we seen prices this low at the pump. The reason is there is a glut of oiling gas on the market right now. That could change, of course, but as of right now, there's no basis to declare an energy emergency. There certainly is a climate emergency, or, if you want to look at it another way, the real energy emergency is the failure to convert and transition away from fossil fuels and to the cleaner sources of energy solar wind, which of course Trump hates because it interferes with his golf course in Scotland. But beyond that, where is most of the renewable energy being developed right now? In Republican states Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa. So the real emergency is we need to get on with the business of transitioning to cleaner, more efficient, and actually more profitable sources of energy.

So here's the fact. That's a fact free statement, right. So the fact is the United States is the largest producer and exporter of oil and gas on the planet, and oil and gas development, contrary to a lot of climate activists, tremendously exponentially expanded under Biden in the last four years. So A, there is no energy emergency. B As to drill, baby drill, here's the data, twenty five million acres of federal lands are under lease already not being developed, twenty five million acres of public lands. Secondly, there are nine thousand drilling permits that have been issued. They're not being developed either. Why not because there's a glut of oiling gas on the market. Why are gasoline prices at the pump the lowest they've been in seventy years? You're that right, seventy years. Not since the nineteen fifties have we seen prices this low at the pump. The reason is there is a glut of oiling gas on the market right now. That could change, of course, but as of right now, there's no basis to declare an energy emergency. There certainly is a climate emergency, or, if you want to look at it another way, the real energy emergency is the failure to convert and transition away from fossil fuels and to the cleaner sources of energy solar wind, which of course Trump hates because it interferes with his golf course in Scotland. But beyond that, where is most of the renewable energy being developed right now? In Republican states Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa. So the real emergency is we need to get on with the business of transitioning to cleaner, more efficient, and actually more profitable sources of energy.

So, as you mentioned, he's been vocal about his dislike of wind for years. What is he trying to do with these executive orders and alternative energy like solar and wind.

So, as you mentioned, he's been vocal about his dislike of wind for years. What is he trying to do with these executive orders and alternative energy like solar and wind.

He's put a pause, as he put it, on offshore wind projects that are still in the permit process. There are nine of them that have already received their permits and they aren't caught by the executive order, but there are seven others that are not finished with permitting, and so he's put a pause on them. And he's threatened to withdraw major portions of offshore wind areas, particularly in what he calls the Gulf of America, which the rest of the world still calls the Gulf of Mexico. And that's a problem or an issue that's going to have to go to the courts, because once again, the president does have authority to withdraw areas of the ocean from development, including I would acknowledge wind development. But again there's a practice by which you do that, including doing an environmental assessment and changing the leasing programs that already have been approved and so forth. So as to further development offshore, that'll be a subject of litigation as well. Here's the downside to all this is it is going to discourage investment. There's been a lot of interest from European Union nations like Norway and Denmark, which is pioneered a lot of offshore win and they want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore win in the United States waters. But of course this particular period of time would probably discourage that kind of investment. So even though the order may lack some legal foundation, they probably will have the desired effect of discouraging at least rapid development of wind and in some cases probably stolar as well.

He's put a pause, as he put it, on offshore wind projects that are still in the permit process. There are nine of them that have already received their permits and they aren't caught by the executive order, but there are seven others that are not finished with permitting, and so he's put a pause on them. And he's threatened to withdraw major portions of offshore wind areas, particularly in what he calls the Gulf of America, which the rest of the world still calls the Gulf of Mexico. And that's a problem or an issue that's going to have to go to the courts, because once again, the president does have authority to withdraw areas of the ocean from development, including I would acknowledge wind development. But again there's a practice by which you do that, including doing an environmental assessment and changing the leasing programs that already have been approved and so forth. So as to further development offshore, that'll be a subject of litigation as well. Here's the downside to all this is it is going to discourage investment. There's been a lot of interest from European Union nations like Norway and Denmark, which is pioneered a lot of offshore win and they want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore win in the United States waters. But of course this particular period of time would probably discourage that kind of investment. So even though the order may lack some legal foundation, they probably will have the desired effect of discouraging at least rapid development of wind and in some cases probably stolar as well.

City Group analysts have said that Trump's policies won't stop the transition to green energy. So in four years, how much damage do you think he can do to the advancement of clean energy.

City Group analysts have said that Trump's policies won't stop the transition to green energy. So in four years, how much damage do you think he can do to the advancement of clean energy.

These orders and decisions and changes in rules and rollbacks of environmental rules. I think he's going to get tripped up repeatedly in court on those actions. But I do think we're losing an awful lot of momentum and opportunity. I do think there's going to be a discouraging effect on the investment market for the next four years. That may take longer than that to rebound, And certainly as he drives more and more people away from federal service, which he's intent on doing, that's going to have an institutional impact on our ability to recover from these four years and get back into the aim of transitioning to renewable energy and cleaner energy sources, including electric vehicles, all of which the marketplace is pushing. So I would agree with the comment that he can't stop the transition that's underway, he will certainly flow it down.

These orders and decisions and changes in rules and rollbacks of environmental rules. I think he's going to get tripped up repeatedly in court on those actions. But I do think we're losing an awful lot of momentum and opportunity. I do think there's going to be a discouraging effect on the investment market for the next four years. That may take longer than that to rebound, And certainly as he drives more and more people away from federal service, which he's intent on doing, that's going to have an institutional impact on our ability to recover from these four years and get back into the aim of transitioning to renewable energy and cleaner energy sources, including electric vehicles, all of which the marketplace is pushing. So I would agree with the comment that he can't stop the transition that's underway, he will certainly flow it down.

This order comes as no surprise. Trump is rescinding environmental justice initiatives, and there were nearly eighty such Biden initiatives. What impact will that have?

This order comes as no surprise. Trump is rescinding environmental justice initiatives, and there were nearly eighty such Biden initiatives. What impact will that have?

This is terrible. This is another part of what we're seeing out of this administration is outright cruelty to people. There's no question but what black, brown, and low income communities across the country have for decades been subject to disproportionate health and environmental impacts. That's where all the really hazardous facilities are cited, whether it's dumping grounds for toxic chemicals and toxic waste or whether it's oil refineries, Cancer Alley and Louisiana, for example. These are communities that have suffered from disproportion that environmental impacts are decades. And finally we had an administration who took seriously the ethical and the moral obligation to stop that and to bring attention to bear on places where people are getting elevated levels of cancer, dying prematurely, having miscarriages, and all kinds of really serious health and well being impacts. And the truth is that we have not devoted enough time through environmental laws, through permitting and licensing, to avoid burdening these communities with ever more life threatening health threatening activities and bringing enforcement actions through EPA and the Department of Justice to target those areas where people are dying and getting sick, to clean it up and to protect people. We've also seen last week that Trump has ordered all five of the section chiefs in the Department of Justice that are in charge of the environmental enforcement sections of Justice, He's reassigned them to Immigration. They're environmental lawyers. They're the lawyers that are leading the effort in the United States to keep communities safe, to bring polluters to justice, and he's decimating the capability of these agencies to do that. That's the real harm that we're seeing.

This is terrible. This is another part of what we're seeing out of this administration is outright cruelty to people. There's no question but what black, brown, and low income communities across the country have for decades been subject to disproportionate health and environmental impacts. That's where all the really hazardous facilities are cited, whether it's dumping grounds for toxic chemicals and toxic waste or whether it's oil refineries, Cancer Alley and Louisiana, for example. These are communities that have suffered from disproportion that environmental impacts are decades. And finally we had an administration who took seriously the ethical and the moral obligation to stop that and to bring attention to bear on places where people are getting elevated levels of cancer, dying prematurely, having miscarriages, and all kinds of really serious health and well being impacts. And the truth is that we have not devoted enough time through environmental laws, through permitting and licensing, to avoid burdening these communities with ever more life threatening health threatening activities and bringing enforcement actions through EPA and the Department of Justice to target those areas where people are dying and getting sick, to clean it up and to protect people. We've also seen last week that Trump has ordered all five of the section chiefs in the Department of Justice that are in charge of the environmental enforcement sections of Justice, He's reassigned them to Immigration. They're environmental lawyers. They're the lawyers that are leading the effort in the United States to keep communities safe, to bring polluters to justice, and he's decimating the capability of these agencies to do that. That's the real harm that we're seeing.

His administration has stopped all pending environmental litigation, But are they going to need environmental lawyers to be fighting all the lawsuits that are going to come down because of these executive orders.

His administration has stopped all pending environmental litigation, But are they going to need environmental lawyers to be fighting all the lawsuits that are going to come down because of these executive orders.

Well, that's the irony of what's going on here. By taking out senior career professionals in the federal agencies, it's actually going to make what Trump wants to do even harder to do. It'll mean that instead of carefully following the law, crossing the t's dotting the eyes and all of that, they're going to keep making the kinds of mistakes they did in Trump's first administration. In their hurry to do this in the demand or you know, to be loyal to the president, not loyal to the rule of law, they're going to make all kinds of mistakes. But here's the problem. It takes time to chase down all these things. That's another strategy here is, you know, flood the zone, throw so many things out there that people will be dispersed and can't keep up with everything he's doing, can't get all these cases into court. And get them heard, get them reversed. That's what they're counting on. I think is just do so much that some stuff is just going to go through because there isn't enough opposition on the other side, and there isn't enough time to get them all turned around or overturned. So eventually I think you're going to see that happening. It'll be later in the four years, but you know, apparently the strategy is stop us if you can.

Well, that's the irony of what's going on here. By taking out senior career professionals in the federal agencies, it's actually going to make what Trump wants to do even harder to do. It'll mean that instead of carefully following the law, crossing the t's dotting the eyes and all of that, they're going to keep making the kinds of mistakes they did in Trump's first administration. In their hurry to do this in the demand or you know, to be loyal to the president, not loyal to the rule of law, they're going to make all kinds of mistakes. But here's the problem. It takes time to chase down all these things. That's another strategy here is, you know, flood the zone, throw so many things out there that people will be dispersed and can't keep up with everything he's doing, can't get all these cases into court. And get them heard, get them reversed. That's what they're counting on. I think is just do so much that some stuff is just going to go through because there isn't enough opposition on the other side, and there isn't enough time to get them all turned around or overturned. So eventually I think you're going to see that happening. It'll be later in the four years, but you know, apparently the strategy is stop us if you can.

It's always a pleasure to talk to the spotted Owl's lawyer. Thanks Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Coming up next, The tiny fish caught in the culture Wars. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, they.

It's always a pleasure to talk to the spotted Owl's lawyer. Thanks Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Coming up next, The tiny fish caught in the culture Wars. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, they.

Talk about the Delta smell, which is a fish that's is big, but it is it is really not doesn't have to be protected because it's in other areas. It's in numerous other areas, so it doesn't have to be protected. The people of California have to be protected.

Talk about the Delta smell, which is a fish that's is big, but it is it is really not doesn't have to be protected because it's in other areas. It's in numerous other areas, so it doesn't have to be protected. The people of California have to be protected.

The Delta smelt is a three inch silvery blue fish that has somehow become a scapegoat or perhaps better said, escapefish for legal protections. To save endangered species. Well before you became president, Donald Trump has been blaming California's wildfire problems on the tiny fish, claiming that needed water is being diverted because of the Delta Smelt.

The Delta smelt is a three inch silvery blue fish that has somehow become a scapegoat or perhaps better said, escapefish for legal protections. To save endangered species. Well before you became president, Donald Trump has been blaming California's wildfire problems on the tiny fish, claiming that needed water is being diverted because of the Delta Smelt.

The water is cut off upstate, up in the north, you know that, And the water in order to protect a certain little tiny fish called the smelt, they send millions and millions of gallons of water out to the Pacific Ocean Way up north.

The water is cut off upstate, up in the north, you know that, And the water in order to protect a certain little tiny fish called the smelt, they send millions and millions of gallons of water out to the Pacific Ocean Way up north.

But Governor Gavin Newsom says TROMP has the facts all wrong, and the state reservoirs are full.

But Governor Gavin Newsom says TROMP has the facts all wrong, and the state reservoirs are full.

I don't know what he's referring to when he talks about the Delta Smelt and reservoirs. The reservoirs are completely full. Of the state reservoirs here in southern California. That missing disinformation. I don't think advantages or aids any.

I don't know what he's referring to when he talks about the Delta Smelt and reservoirs. The reservoirs are completely full. Of the state reservoirs here in southern California. That missing disinformation. I don't think advantages or aids any.

Of us despite those facts. Trump signed in an executive order on day one targeting the Delta Smelt entitled Putting People over Fish Stopping Radical Environmentalism to provide water to Southern California. Joining me is Caleb Scoville, a sociology professor at Tuff's University who's writing a book on the politics of the Delta smelt. So Caleb tell us a little about this little fish.

Of us despite those facts. Trump signed in an executive order on day one targeting the Delta Smelt entitled Putting People over Fish Stopping Radical Environmentalism to provide water to Southern California. Joining me is Caleb Scoville, a sociology professor at Tuff's University who's writing a book on the politics of the Delta smelt. So Caleb tell us a little about this little fish.

The Delta smelt is a small, translucent fish. You know, it's not two three inches long. It lives in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, which is where California's major river systems converge just east of the San Francisco Bay where before the rivers kind of conversion flow out to the bay. Fish that only lives in that area. It's California's largest estuary, and it is also the center of California's water distribution system. So it's where giant pumps were installed in the mid twentieth century to irrigate farmland in the Central Valley San Joaquin Valley, and also provides water to major cities in central and southern California, as well as the Silicon Valley. So the fish is small, but it's a native fish that used to be one of the most abundant species in that ecosystem, and it has declined in recent decades because of the human transformations of its ecosystem.

The Delta smelt is a small, translucent fish. You know, it's not two three inches long. It lives in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, which is where California's major river systems converge just east of the San Francisco Bay where before the rivers kind of conversion flow out to the bay. Fish that only lives in that area. It's California's largest estuary, and it is also the center of California's water distribution system. So it's where giant pumps were installed in the mid twentieth century to irrigate farmland in the Central Valley San Joaquin Valley, and also provides water to major cities in central and southern California, as well as the Silicon Valley. So the fish is small, but it's a native fish that used to be one of the most abundant species in that ecosystem, and it has declined in recent decades because of the human transformations of its ecosystem.

When did it start to become controversial.

When did it start to become controversial.

That's a complicated question. You know, the species became considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act in the late nineteen eighties and early nineteen nineties, and at the time, you know, it was somewhat controversial because regulators and stakeholders, you know, agricultural interest cities, understood that it may complicate the operation California's water infrastructure. So it was controversial even before it was listed under the Endangered Species Act. But this controversy was mostly within the world of California water policy. So in the early nineteen nineties, there were you know, concerns about what the effects of protecting this species would be. When it was listed under the Endangered Species Act, it continued to be controversial, but the listing of this species and also conflict over water quality standards between the federal government and the state government resulted actually in a lot of cooperation to avoid future lawsuits, and so the controversy sort of died down a little bit, and it really wasn't until the mid two thousands that the controversy picked up again. And this was initially precipitated by a legal decision by a judge in California, actually a Republican appointed judge that the regulations protecting this species from those pumps that send water to farms and cities in California. The way that they were running the pump was in violation of these Dangerous Species Acts, and so this resulted in a brief but dramatic shut off of the pump and then in order that new regulations had to be put in place seven two eight that this unfolded.

That's a complicated question. You know, the species became considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act in the late nineteen eighties and early nineteen nineties, and at the time, you know, it was somewhat controversial because regulators and stakeholders, you know, agricultural interest cities, understood that it may complicate the operation California's water infrastructure. So it was controversial even before it was listed under the Endangered Species Act. But this controversy was mostly within the world of California water policy. So in the early nineteen nineties, there were you know, concerns about what the effects of protecting this species would be. When it was listed under the Endangered Species Act, it continued to be controversial, but the listing of this species and also conflict over water quality standards between the federal government and the state government resulted actually in a lot of cooperation to avoid future lawsuits, and so the controversy sort of died down a little bit, and it really wasn't until the mid two thousands that the controversy picked up again. And this was initially precipitated by a legal decision by a judge in California, actually a Republican appointed judge that the regulations protecting this species from those pumps that send water to farms and cities in California. The way that they were running the pump was in violation of these Dangerous Species Acts, and so this resulted in a brief but dramatic shut off of the pump and then in order that new regulations had to be put in place seven two eight that this unfolded.

Before that was anything in particular done when it was put on the Endangered Species list to help preserve it.

Before that was anything in particular done when it was put on the Endangered Species list to help preserve it.

Yeah, So when a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, so any federal agency that has a project that's going to affect the species and could potentially cause harm to the species has to come up with basically a plan to avoid jeopardizing and the continued existence of that species. So there were regulations that essentially regulated the amount of water that could be pumped at particular times, and then there were a series of other measures, you know, including various ways of managing water that were tried to save the species from extinction. It's complicated. I mean, there were some habitat restoration projects. There was something called the Environmental Water Account, which is essentially like setting aside a certain amount of water that could be used to pump into its habitat at certain periods of time. All of us is basically a way of managing water to try to balance the need of ecosystems and the human interest in extracting water from its habitat. Now, I should mention that the ADULTA smelt is just one species among many that are affected by California's water distribution system. Salmon that our native to that area are also listed on the Dangered Species Act, as our sturgeon, and there's a whole complex ecosystem. So the ADULTA smelt, it's one species, but it's also very sensitive species, so it's often treated as a kind of indicator species for the overall quality and help of the ecosystem. And these initial efforts, it was called the calf Ed program, were intended to sort of balance the needs of the environment and people's interest in water, and it also as a way to provide stability to avoid future lawsuits that might shut down the system because people were really interested in stability.

Yeah, So when a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, so any federal agency that has a project that's going to affect the species and could potentially cause harm to the species has to come up with basically a plan to avoid jeopardizing and the continued existence of that species. So there were regulations that essentially regulated the amount of water that could be pumped at particular times, and then there were a series of other measures, you know, including various ways of managing water that were tried to save the species from extinction. It's complicated. I mean, there were some habitat restoration projects. There was something called the Environmental Water Account, which is essentially like setting aside a certain amount of water that could be used to pump into its habitat at certain periods of time. All of us is basically a way of managing water to try to balance the need of ecosystems and the human interest in extracting water from its habitat. Now, I should mention that the ADULTA smelt is just one species among many that are affected by California's water distribution system. Salmon that our native to that area are also listed on the Dangered Species Act, as our sturgeon, and there's a whole complex ecosystem. So the ADULTA smelt, it's one species, but it's also very sensitive species, so it's often treated as a kind of indicator species for the overall quality and help of the ecosystem. And these initial efforts, it was called the calf Ed program, were intended to sort of balance the needs of the environment and people's interest in water, and it also as a way to provide stability to avoid future lawsuits that might shut down the system because people were really interested in stability.

When the judge issued this order, how did it change what California was doing with its water systems or did it?

When the judge issued this order, how did it change what California was doing with its water systems or did it?

It did require the agencies to rewrite the way that they were regulating the pumps and managing water in dance. I don't think it's fair to say that it completely reorganized the way water was used in the States.

It did require the agencies to rewrite the way that they were regulating the pumps and managing water in dance. I don't think it's fair to say that it completely reorganized the way water was used in the States.

It's a very.

It's a very.

Complex regulatory process that involves using the best available science to come up with a plan to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of this species. So there was an initial shutdown of water for just a very short amount of time days, and then there was a new regulatory regime that was put in place, and that was in place for many years. Overall, protections of the Delta Smelt only account for a pretty small, pretty marginal amount of water that could have otherwise been used by people.

Complex regulatory process that involves using the best available science to come up with a plan to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of this species. So there was an initial shutdown of water for just a very short amount of time days, and then there was a new regulatory regime that was put in place, and that was in place for many years. Overall, protections of the Delta Smelt only account for a pretty small, pretty marginal amount of water that could have otherwise been used by people.

But it was the dramatic.

But it was the dramatic.

Shut off that actually created a lot of headlines. And so really the controversy even then was fairly muted, and what made it a national controversy was actually not anything regulatory at all or anything legal. It was when Sean Hannity had an entire episode of his show on the Delta Smelt sort of blaming drought and Great Recession era hardships on the protections of the Delta Smelt. So that was in two thousand, not actually more than a year after the decision that resulted in the brief shut off of the pumps. So Hannity is actually the person who brought the Delta smelt into the national public sphere.

Shut off that actually created a lot of headlines. And so really the controversy even then was fairly muted, and what made it a national controversy was actually not anything regulatory at all or anything legal. It was when Sean Hannity had an entire episode of his show on the Delta Smelt sort of blaming drought and Great Recession era hardships on the protections of the Delta Smelt. So that was in two thousand, not actually more than a year after the decision that resulted in the brief shut off of the pumps. So Hannity is actually the person who brought the Delta smelt into the national public sphere.

And why do you think this caught on as a controversy.

And why do you think this caught on as a controversy.

First of all, was the context. Barack Obama had just become president of the United States. There was also a recession which was causing a lot of employment right after the financial crisis of two thousand and eight. California also at that time, and it continues to be with Trump just kind of an avatar for everything that is supposedly wrong with liberalism and environmentalism in the United States for a certain subset of conservative commentators. So those aspects sort of align. And then the delta smelt, being a very small and obscure species that is uncharismatic, you know, it's two inches long, it has a funny name, it became a vessel for the implicit message that liberal environmentalists in cities care more about a small, uncharismatic fish that they care about hardworking, honest people like you. So there's a kind of implicit message and sometimes very explicit message that environmentalists simply don't care about their fellow Americans. And you know that could also go for liberals, or could go for Obama, or could go for in this case Skeavin Newsom. And you know, because of the delta smelt is a species that doesn't have obvious use to people. Isn't large or beautiful or charismatic. Right, It's not the bald eagle, it's not even the salmon. It becomes a very useful symbol for everything that's supposed to be wrong with environmentalism in America.

First of all, was the context. Barack Obama had just become president of the United States. There was also a recession which was causing a lot of employment right after the financial crisis of two thousand and eight. California also at that time, and it continues to be with Trump just kind of an avatar for everything that is supposedly wrong with liberalism and environmentalism in the United States for a certain subset of conservative commentators. So those aspects sort of align. And then the delta smelt, being a very small and obscure species that is uncharismatic, you know, it's two inches long, it has a funny name, it became a vessel for the implicit message that liberal environmentalists in cities care more about a small, uncharismatic fish that they care about hardworking, honest people like you. So there's a kind of implicit message and sometimes very explicit message that environmentalists simply don't care about their fellow Americans. And you know that could also go for liberals, or could go for Obama, or could go for in this case Skeavin Newsom. And you know, because of the delta smelt is a species that doesn't have obvious use to people. Isn't large or beautiful or charismatic. Right, It's not the bald eagle, it's not even the salmon. It becomes a very useful symbol for everything that's supposed to be wrong with environmentalism in America.

You wrote that the frequent usage of descriptors like tiny or little suggests that the delta smelt small size and lack of charisma made it the perfect icon to drum up right wing resentment, allowing you to become a divisive cultural object. Yeah, I mean it's it's a culture wars.

You wrote that the frequent usage of descriptors like tiny or little suggests that the delta smelt small size and lack of charisma made it the perfect icon to drum up right wing resentment, allowing you to become a divisive cultural object. Yeah, I mean it's it's a culture wars.

Fish now, Yeah, exactly. And so there's a very complex and interesting history of California water that the delta smelt plays a role. And the delta smelt is regulated by the Native Species Act. It has accounted for some amount of water being set aside and not used by people over the years.

Fish now, Yeah, exactly. And so there's a very complex and interesting history of California water that the delta smelt plays a role. And the delta smelt is regulated by the Native Species Act. It has accounted for some amount of water being set aside and not used by people over the years.

That's true.

That's true.

However, this is a much smaller proportion than many critics would imagine. And also those regulations that protect the Delta smelt also protect the quality of the water for people to use. Because of where the pumps are, There's only so much you can extract at a particular time, especially, you know, depending on hydrologic conditions, there's only so much you can extract without pulling in seawater right becoming too salty to even use to irrigate crops or drink. So the idea, you know, that you could just stop these regulations and take as much wonder as you want is not true at all. So the culture war thing, you know, in two thousand and nine, I see that as kind of the moment where the delta smelt escaped the world of California water politics. And I've done a systematic media analysis to show that there's no relationship between the hydrologic effects of protecting this species and when the controversy flares up. So really, the Delta smelt as culture war or symbol or culture war object has very little to do with the world of California water.

However, this is a much smaller proportion than many critics would imagine. And also those regulations that protect the Delta smelt also protect the quality of the water for people to use. Because of where the pumps are, There's only so much you can extract at a particular time, especially, you know, depending on hydrologic conditions, there's only so much you can extract without pulling in seawater right becoming too salty to even use to irrigate crops or drink. So the idea, you know, that you could just stop these regulations and take as much wonder as you want is not true at all. So the culture war thing, you know, in two thousand and nine, I see that as kind of the moment where the delta smelt escaped the world of California water politics. And I've done a systematic media analysis to show that there's no relationship between the hydrologic effects of protecting this species and when the controversy flares up. So really, the Delta smelt as culture war or symbol or culture war object has very little to do with the world of California water.

Trump has blamed protections for the Delta smelt for the devastating California wildfires, recently saying it's responsible for the gaps in water access.

Trump has blamed protections for the Delta smelt for the devastating California wildfires, recently saying it's responsible for the gaps in water access.

Yes, he had, and let's be clear, that's completely false. There's zero truth to it.

Yes, he had, and let's be clear, that's completely false. There's zero truth to it.

Right.

Right.

You can see why that connection would pop into his mind because there are regulations of the species that do regulate how much water can be extracted from the sacrament of San jua Quing Delta to California's water project, which are the infrastructure system, So you can understand the connection. But it's very easy to refute what he said by looking at the reservoir levels in California and in Southern California in particular, most of which are at or above average for this time of year. There's plenty of water, so it's not a supply issue. If there was an issue with how much water we could take out of the delta because of endangered Species X protection, it would be reflected in the reservoir life. There were issues at the local level for the system that was designed to handle maybe a house fire, to be able to handle a city fire, right and I'm not qualified to say what should have been done there, But the invocation of the delta smelt is a complete misdirection and it does nothing to help the situation, and in fact, it distracts from the real tragedy and the real problems that we face in a climate change world, and also just in cities that face hazards that we need to manage.

You can see why that connection would pop into his mind because there are regulations of the species that do regulate how much water can be extracted from the sacrament of San jua Quing Delta to California's water project, which are the infrastructure system, So you can understand the connection. But it's very easy to refute what he said by looking at the reservoir levels in California and in Southern California in particular, most of which are at or above average for this time of year. There's plenty of water, so it's not a supply issue. If there was an issue with how much water we could take out of the delta because of endangered Species X protection, it would be reflected in the reservoir life. There were issues at the local level for the system that was designed to handle maybe a house fire, to be able to handle a city fire, right and I'm not qualified to say what should have been done there, But the invocation of the delta smelt is a complete misdirection and it does nothing to help the situation, and in fact, it distracts from the real tragedy and the real problems that we face in a climate change world, and also just in cities that face hazards that we need to manage.

So what's the status of the Delta smelt right now?

So what's the status of the Delta smelt right now?

Yeah, the Delta smelt remains listed on the endangered species list, as experts working in the systems a natural scientists working in the system would say, it's arguably functionally extinct. So that doesn't mean that there are no Delta smelt left in the system, but there are very few. It is not what it used to be. There's now actually many more Delta smeuths living in a captive population sort of trying to maintain the species and do some experimental releases to try to potentially propagate it permanently in the delta than there are in the wild. So it's actually kind of a sad example of what we've done to ecosystems. But it's not as much of a factor in California water policy as it might seem given how much we're talking about it, And there are other species protections like salmon. And you'll notice that the folks who will vilify the Delta smelt and regulations for the adulta Belth rarely mentioned Sam because they know that driving salmon into extation is not a very politically popular project. So I think that says something about why the Delta Smelt is such a useful strategic object for people who want to play kind of divisive culture war games against environmentalists.

Yeah, the Delta smelt remains listed on the endangered species list, as experts working in the systems a natural scientists working in the system would say, it's arguably functionally extinct. So that doesn't mean that there are no Delta smelt left in the system, but there are very few. It is not what it used to be. There's now actually many more Delta smeuths living in a captive population sort of trying to maintain the species and do some experimental releases to try to potentially propagate it permanently in the delta than there are in the wild. So it's actually kind of a sad example of what we've done to ecosystems. But it's not as much of a factor in California water policy as it might seem given how much we're talking about it, And there are other species protections like salmon. And you'll notice that the folks who will vilify the Delta smelt and regulations for the adulta Belth rarely mentioned Sam because they know that driving salmon into extation is not a very politically popular project. So I think that says something about why the Delta Smelt is such a useful strategic object for people who want to play kind of divisive culture war games against environmentalists.

It's really fascinating how this tiny fish got caught in the culture wars. Thanks so much, Caleb. That's tough, University sociology Professor Caleb Schofield. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg

It's really fascinating how this tiny fish got caught in the culture wars. Thanks so much, Caleb. That's tough, University sociology Professor Caleb Schofield. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg