State Attorneys General Press Senate to End Trump’s National Energy Emergency

A coalition of state Attorneys General has formally urged the U.S. Senate to terminate the national energy emergency declared by former President Donald Trump, arguing the measure lacks evidentiary basis and undermines the nation’s energy objectives. In a detailed letter dated February 18, 2025, sent via email, the Attorneys General specifically called upon the Honorable Mike Lee, Chairman, and the Honorable Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member, of the U.S. Senate Committee with relevant jurisdiction, to support S.J. Res. 10, a joint resolution aimed at revoking the declaration.

The emergency declaration in question was initiated by President Trump through Executive Order 14156 on January 20, 2025. This order, formally cited in the Federal Register as 90 Fed. Reg. 8433, established a national emergency concerning the nation’s energy supply. However, the state legal officers contend that this declaration is unwarranted and potentially detrimental to the stability and affordability of energy for American consumers.

Arguments Against the Declaration

The core of the Attorneys General’s argument rests on the assertion that the national energy emergency declaration is “unsupported by evidence.” They challenge the premise that the United States faces an energy crisis severe enough to warrant such extraordinary measures. Their letter highlights data indicating that American energy production has reached an all-time high, suggesting robust supply conditions rather than scarcity.

Furthermore, the Attorneys General counter any claims of grid instability, stating emphatically that the nation’s electricity grid is resilient. This assertion directly contradicts the implicit or explicit justifications that might be used to support an emergency declaration based on infrastructure vulnerability or capacity issues.

The state officials also argue that the emergency declaration runs counter to the established national goal of promoting energy that is reliable, diverse, and affordable. They express concern that, rather than enhancing these aspects, the declaration and any resulting deregulation or policy shifts could have the opposite effect.

Potential Negative Impacts

The letter from the Attorneys General specifically warns that the declaration and subsequent actions taken under its authority could potentially render the nation’s energy supply less reliable and less affordable. While the specific mechanisms through which this could occur are not exhaustively detailed in the provided summary, the implication is that emergency powers or deregulatory actions, potentially enacted swiftly and without standard checks and balances, could disrupt market stability, investment in diverse energy sources, or the regulatory frameworks designed to protect consumers from price volatility or service interruptions.

Emergency declarations typically grant the executive branch expanded powers, potentially allowing for waivers of regulations, expedited project approvals, or directives that could alter energy markets. The Attorneys General’s concern appears to be that such interventions, based on what they see as a false premise of emergency, could introduce instability or unintended consequences that harm reliability and drive up costs for states and their residents.

Call for Legislative Action

The direct appeal to Senators Lee and Heinrich, as key leaders on a relevant Senate Committee, underscores the Attorneys General’s strategy to seek a legislative remedy. By urging support for S.J. Res. 10, they are advocating for Congress to exercise its authority to terminate a national emergency declared by the President. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate a national emergency through a joint resolution, requiring passage by both the House and Senate and presentment to the President.

The Attorneys General are essentially providing the Senate Committee with a legal and factual brief from the perspective of state governments, arguing that the conditions on the ground do not justify the continued existence of the declared emergency. Their collective voice, representing multiple states, carries significant weight as they are the chief legal officers responsible for protecting their states’ interests and citizens.

Context and Implications

This action by the state Attorneys General highlights the ongoing tension between federal executive authority and state oversight, particularly in critical areas like energy policy. While the President declared the emergency using powers vested in the executive, state officials, who deal directly with the impacts of energy policy on their constituents, are using their platform to challenge the factual basis and potential consequences of that declaration.

The move puts pressure on the U.S. Senate Committee to consider the merits of S.J. Res. 10 and evaluate the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the continuation of the energy emergency. The arguments presented by the Attorneys General suggest a view that the declaration is more a matter of policy preference or political positioning than a response to a genuine, evidence-backed emergency threatening national energy security.

In conclusion, the letter from the Attorneys General represents a significant effort by state governments to push back against a federal declaration they deem unnecessary and potentially harmful. By calling for support of S.J. Res. 10, they seek to leverage the legislative process to reverse the course set by Executive Order 14156, advocating for policies they believe better serve the goal of a reliable, diverse, and affordable energy future for the nation.