The federal government allows livestock grazing across an area of publicly owned land more than twice the size of California, making ranching the largest land use in the West. Billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies support the system, which often harms the environment.

As President Donald Trump’s administration pushes a pro-ranching agenda, ProPublica and High Country News investigated how public lands ranching has evolved. We filed more than 100 public record requests and sued the Bureau of Land Management to pry free documents and data; we interviewed everyone from ranchers to conservationists; and we toured ranching operations in Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Nevada.

The resulting three-part investigation digs into the subsidies baked into ranching, the environmental impacts from livestock and the political clout that protects this status quo. Here are the takeaways from that work.

The system has evolved into a subsidy program for ranchers.

The public lands grazing system was modernized in the 1930s in response to the rampant use of natural resources that led to the Dust Bowl — the massive dust storms triggered by poor agricultural practices, including overgrazing. Today, the system focuses on subsidizing the continued grazing of these lands.

The BLM and Forest Service, the two largest federal land management agencies, oversee most of the system. Combined, the agencies charged ranchers $21 million in grazing fees in 2024. Our analysis found that to be about a 93% discount, on average, compared with the market rate for forage on private land. We also found that, in 2024 alone, the federal government poured at least $2.5 billion into subsidy programs that public lands ranchers can access. Such subsidies include disaster assistance after droughts and floods as well as compensation for livestock lost to predators.

Ranching is consolidated in the hands of some of the wealthiest Americans.

A small number of wealthy individuals and corporations manage most livestock on public lands. Roughly two-thirds of the grazing on BLM acreage is controlled by just 10% of ranchers, our analysis found. And on Forest Service land, the top 10% of permittees control more than 50% of grazing. Among the largest ranchers are billionaires like Stan Kroenke and Rupert Murdoch, as well as mining companies and public utilities. The financial benefits of holding permits to graze herds on public lands extend beyond cattle sales. Even hobby ranches can qualify for property tax breaks in many areas; ranching business expenses can be deducted from federal taxes; and private property associated with grazing permits is a stable long-term investment. (Representatives of Kroenke did not respond to requests for comment, and Murdoch’s representative declined to comment.)

The Trump administration is supercharging the system, including by further increasing subsidies.

The administration released a “plan to fortify the American Beef Industry” in October that instructed the BLM and Forest Service to amend grazing regulations for the first time since the 1990s. The plan suggested that taxpayers further support ranching by increasing subsidies for drought and wildfire relief, livestock killed by predators and government-backed insurance. The White House referred questions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which said in a statement, “Livestock grazing is not only a federally and statutorily recognized appropriate land use, but a proven land management tool, one that reduces invasive species and wildfire risk, enhances ecosystem health, and supports rural stewardship.” Roughly 18,000 permittees graze livestock on BLM or Forest Service land, most of them small operations. These ranchers say they need government support and cheaper grazing fees to avoid insolvency.

The administration is loosening already lax oversight.

Ranchers must renew their permits to use public lands every 10 years, including undergoing an environmental review. But Congress passed a law in 2014 that allows permits to be automatically renewed if federal agencies are unable to complete such reviews. In 2013, the BLM approved grazing on 47% of its land open to livestock without an environmental review, our analysis of agency data showed. (The status of about an additional 10% of BLM land was unclear that year.) A decade later, the BLM authorized grazing on roughly 75% of its acreage without review.

This is in large part because the BLM’s rangeland management staff is shrinking. The number of these employees dropped 39% between 2020 and 2024, according to Office of Personnel Management data, and roughly 1 in 10 rangeland staff left the agency between Trump’s election win and last June, according to BLM records.

The system allows widespread environmental harm in the West.

The BLM oversees 155 million acres of public lands open to grazing, and assessments it conducts on the health of the environment found that grazing had degraded at least 38 million acres, an area about half the size of New Mexico. The agency has no record of land health assessments for an additional 35 million acres. ProPublica and High Country News observed overgrazing in multiple states, including streambeds trampled by cattle, grasslands denuded by grazing and creeks fouled by cow corpses.

Ranchers contend that public lands grazing has ecological benefits, such as preventing nearby private lands from being sold off and paved over. Bill Fales and his family, for example, run cattle in western Colorado and have done so for more than a century. “The wildlife here is dependent on these ranches staying as open ranch land,” he said. While development destroyed habitat nearby, Fales said, the areas his cattle graze are increasingly shared by animals such as elk, bears and mountain lions.

Regulators say that it’s difficult to significantly change the system because of the industry’s political influence.

We interviewed 10 current and former BLM employees, from upper management to rank-and-file rangeland managers, and they all spoke of political pressure to go easy on ranchers. “If we do anything anti-grazing, there’s at least a decent chance of politicians being involved,” one BLM employee told us. “We want to avoid that, so we don’t do anything that would bring that about.” A BLM spokesperson said in a statement that “any policy decisions are made in accordance with federal law and are designed to balance economic opportunity with conservation responsibilities across the nation’s public lands.”

The industry has friends in high places. The Trump administration appointed to a high-level post at the U.S. Department of the Interior a lawyer who has represented ranchers in cases against the government and owns a stake in a Wyoming cattle operation. The administration also named a tech entrepreneur who owns a ranch in Idaho to a post overseeing the Forest Service.

Moreover, politicians from both parties are quick to act if they believe ranchers face onerous oversight. Since 2020, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have written to the BLM and Forest Service about grazing issues more than 20 times, according to logs of agency communications we obtained via public records requests.

Read our full investigation of the federal public lands grazing system.

The post The Biggest Takeaways From Our Investigation Into Grazing on Public Lands appeared first on ProPublica.

Ethylene oxide was once considered an unremarkable pollutant. The colorless gas seeped from relatively few industrial facilities and commanded little public attention. 

All that changed in 2016, when the Environmental Protection Agency completed a study that found the chemical is 30 times more carcinogenic than previously thought.

The agency then spent years updating regulations that protect millions of people who are most exposed to the compound. In 2024, the EPA approved stricter rules that require commercial sterilizers for medical equipment and large chemical plants to slash emissions of ethylene oxide, which causes lymphoma and breast cancer.

It was doing what the EPA has done countless times: revising rules based on new scientific knowledge.

Now, its ability to do that for many air pollutants is under threat. 

In government records that have flown under the radar, President Donald Trump’s EPA said it is reconsidering whether the agency had the legal authority to update those rules. 

Chemical companies and their trade organizations have argued that the EPA cannot reevaluate hazardous air pollution rules to account for newly discovered harms if it has revised them once already.

It doesn’t matter if decades have passed or new information has emerged. 

If the EPA agrees, environmentalists fear that the decision could have wide implications, significantly curbing the EPA’s ability to limit nearly 200 pollutants from thousands of industrial plants. The next time new science reveals that a chemical is much more toxic, or that the amount of pollution released from a factory had been underestimated and would cause legally unacceptable health risks, the agency would not be able to react.

“It’s a poor reflection on this administration’s claim that they are actually interested in clean air,” said Ana Baptista, a professor of environmental policy and sustainability management at The New School. “By saying we’re no longer going to consider science, it’s abdicating your mission.”

The EPA didn’t address ProPublica’s questions about the ethylene oxide reevaluation or its broader implications. Instead, the agency pointed to a March press release about how it was reconsidering multiple air pollution rules issued by President Joe Biden’s administration, including the ones for chemical plants and commercial sterilizers. “EPA is committed to using the gold standard of science during these reviews,” a spokesperson said in an email. “Since day one, EPA has been clear that providing clean air, water, and land for all Americans is a top priority.” 

The EPA’s reconsideration focuses on the Clean Air Act, the country’s most powerful air quality law, which regulates hazardous air pollutants for different types of industrial operations. There’s a specific rule for oil refineries, for instance, and another for steel mills. Within eight years after each rule is published, the EPA is required to conduct an assessment, called a residual risk review, to decide if an update is necessary. 

These assessments use detailed data on the quantity of emissions coming from each facility, the toxicity of each chemical and other information on how the chemicals are released and dispersed in the air. The combined data reveals how the emissions put local residents at risk of cancer, respiratory diseases, reproductive harm and other health problems. 

If the EPA determines the overall risks exceed what’s allowed under the law, the agency must tighten the rules.

The Clean Air Act doesn’t say whether the EPA is required to conduct additional residual risk reviews after the first one. Nor does it specifically prohibit the agency from doing so.

As far back as 2006, the EPA under President George W. Bush asserted that the agency had the right to revisit and revise the rules based on risk. 

The issue became newly relevant in 2021, when the EPA’s Office of Inspector General cited the new conclusions about the toxicity of ethylene oxide. The office estimated that nearly half a million Americans were exposed to unacceptable cancer risks from industrial emissions by chemical plants, commercial sterilizers and other facilities pumping out ethylene oxide.

In its report, the inspector general’s office advised the agency to “exercise its discretionary authority to conduct new residual risk reviews” as needed when “new data or information indicates an air pollutant is more toxic than previously determined.” (The inspector general was a Trump appointee.)

The EPA had already conducted the first, mandatory risk reviews for large chemical plants and commercial sterilizers in the early 2000s. In response to the inspector general report, the agency launched additional reviews using the updated science on ethylene oxide. Ultimately, the EPA determined the health risks were unacceptable and revised the rules to lower them. The agency asserted that the Clean Air Act “does not limit our discretion or authority to conduct another risk review should we consider that such review is warranted.” 

According to the EPA’s estimates, the new regulations for chemical plants under the 2024 revised rule would cut the number of nearby residents who are exposed to unacceptable cancer risks from 90,000 to 3,000. 

But the chemical industry opposed the stricter rules. Industry representatives disagreed with the EPA’s new assessment of ethylene oxide, contending that it overestimated the risk the chemical posed, and argued the agency didn’t have the authority to conduct those risk reviews. In a 2023 letter, the American Chemistry Council said “the Agency has erred in conducting a new risk review,” as “the plain text” of the Clean Air Act “indicates that EPA actually lacks this authority.”

Similarly, the Louisiana Chemical Association submitted public comments on the chemical plant rule stating the “EPA has no statutory authority to conduct a second risk review” and that doing so was “arbitrary and capricious.”

David Cresson, president and CEO of the association, told ProPublica that the trade group supports “protecting the public’s health through regulatory frameworks that are lawful, while remaining based in sound science.” 

Brendan Bradley, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, said the organization had no further comment on the issue.

After Trump was inaugurated, one of his appointees to the EPA let the industry know the agency was conducting a “reconsideration” of the two rules focused on ethylene oxide emissions. Last spring, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Abigale Tardif, a former oil and gas lobbyist, hinted at how the EPA might challenge those rules.

In letters addressed to trade groups representing commercial sterilizers and chemical plants, Tardif said the agency was reconsidering multiple issues related to the rules, including the “EPA’s authority and decision to undertake a second residual risk review” under the Clean Air Act, as well as “the analysis and determinations made in that review, and the resulting risk standards.”

Tardif didn’t respond to requests for comment. 

The agency also filed a regulatory notice about its plans to revise the 2024 chemical plant rule. Citing the part of the Clean Air Act that deals with the updated rule assessments, the notice said the EPA had “identified items for reconsideration around its CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review authority.” 

While the stricter ethylene oxide rules are technically still in effect, the Trump administration has exempted dozens of large chemical plants and sterilizer facilities from following them as the agency works through a formal process that is widely expected to result in watered-down standards.

If the Trump EPA does decide it lacks the legal authority to conduct multiple risk reviews, the agency might still have the authority to strengthen hazardous air pollution rules by using a separate part of the Clean Air Act, said Abel Russ, a senior attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group. That section of the act allows the EPA to update a rule if agency scientists conclude that better pollution-control technology is affordable and available. But limiting the agency’s ability to conduct residual risk reviews would be a serious blow to the act, Russ said, “kneecapping” the agency’s authority over these toxic pollutants. 

Environmental groups will almost certainly sue if the EPA concludes it does not have the legal authority to revise hazardous air pollution rules more than once based on risk. Russ called industry’s comments absurd and said they don’t account for the reality that our knowledge of industrial pollution is changing all the time. 

As ProPublica reported in October, the agency recently received clear evidence that many industrial facilities are leaking far more pollution than the companies that own them previously reported. In 2023, researchers who conducted their own air monitoring in the industrial corridor of Louisiana known as Cancer Alley found much higher concentrations of ethylene oxide than expected. For more than half the areas they sampled, the local cancer risk from ethylene oxide would be unacceptable if residents were exposed to these concentrations over a lifetime.

If the EPA decides it lacks the legal authority to conduct multiple risk reviews, it would find itself in the position of not being able to take action even if the agency confirmed similar results.

“The whole premise of risk assessment is that it’s based on the best available science,” said Kimberly Terrell, a research scientist at the Environmental Integrity Project. As our knowledge grows, researchers tend to find that chemicals are linked to additional health effects, she added, so blocking these updates “pretty much ensures” the EPA is underestimating the risks.

The post Trump’s EPA Could Limit Its Own Ability to Use New Science to Strengthen Air Pollution Rules appeared first on ProPublica.

A few months ago, Oregon’s green energy outlook was bleak.

The state Legislature and Gov. Tina Kotek had repeatedly failed to address a huge obstacle that has held back wind and solar projects in the Northwest for years: aging electrical lines too jammed up to handle more renewable power.

A series of articles by Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica identified barriers in the federal and state bureaucracies that delayed improvements to beef up the grid. The failure to complete upgrades is the main reason Oregon, like its fellow progressive state and neighbor Washington, has lagged most of the nation in the growth of clean energy despite an internal mandate to go green.

Bills to tackle the transmission problem continued to languish and die in the Oregon Legislature as recently as this spring.

But there has been a groundswell of urgency since the stories were published.

Kotek, a Democrat, has now issued two executive orders mandating that state agencies speed up renewable energy development by any available means, including fast-tracking permits and directly paying for new transmission lines.

Those efforts could eventually be backed up by money. The state’s energy department, in a first, recommended lawmakers consider creating a state entity to finance, plan and build transmission lines. A lawmaker whose bill to create such an authority failed this year suddenly has hope for getting it done, and he said the governor’s office is working with him to make it happen.

What was essentially an unacknowledged problem among many Oregon policymakers now has the full attention of the governor and the key agencies that report to her. There has been new attention on electrical transmission in Washington state, as well.

The shift comes as President Donald Trump has created new obstacles to ramping up renewable energy. This year, he removed tax credits that made wind and solar cheaper to build, blocked new wind permits and fired employees of the federal agency that reviews them.

This was the year “where you’ve seen all these factors coming together — we know that our outdated grid is choking our ability to grow across the state, and we’re already paying more for electricity,” Kotek said in an interview last week.

Kotek acknowledged the role of OPB and ProPublica’s reporting when asked what prompted the changes.

“You’ve been doing some great stories,” she said.

In May, OPB and ProPublica showed that the state ranked 47th in renewable energy growth over the past decade. Washington is 50th.

An analysis by the news organizations found that Northwest wind and solar farms face the longest odds in the country for successfully connecting to the power grid, under a process heavily controlled by the Bonneville Power Administration. The federal agency’s transmission lines and substations constitute 75% of the region’s electrical network.

Out of 469 large renewables projects that have sought access to Bonneville’s system since 2015, only one was successful. Backers of the other projects either abandoned their requests or were still waiting on studies and necessary upgrades to power lines and substations.

Northwest utilities fear rolling blackouts within the decade unless transmission capacity is expanded to meet surging energy demand, particularly from data centers that support artificial intelligence.

Kotek said she hadn’t seen the numbers on Oregon’s stagnant renewable energy growth before OPB and ProPublica reported them.

“I hope — and we will be planning — to make our numbers look better and better in the coming years,” she said.

In 2021, when lawmakers enacted Oregon’s plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in electrical generation by 2040, they failed to account for transmission and the glacial pace set by Bonneville for improvements. (The agency has said previously its project approval decisions are guided by financial prudence.)

Oregon leaders also did not address the state’s slow process for evaluating energy projects, with appeals that can prolong permit decisions on new power lines or wind and solar farms for years. The rules originated with the 1970s antinuclear movement. Foes say rural transmission and wind projects blight the landscape, and they have used the permitting system as a means of delay.

Bills to smooth out the state permitting process, even those supported by rural interests, went nowhere. Efforts to bypass Bonneville also withered. Advocates proposed a state financing authority for new transmission lines and substations as recently as this year. The legislation, which lacked the endorsement of either Kotek or the Oregon Department of Energy, died.

Emily Moore, director of climate and energy for the Seattle-based think tank Sightline Institute, called OPB and ProPublica’s reporting “invaluable” in prompting change.

“It has motivated policymakers and advocates alike to try to find solutions to get Oregon and Washington unstuck and is recruiting new people to the effort,” Moore said.

Kotek’s latest executive order calls for a wide array of state agencies to recommend ways to overcome obstacles to clean energy development. This followed her October order for state agencies to take “any and all steps necessary” to fast-track solar and wind permits.

Separately, the energy department recommended lawmakers look into creating a new entity like state authorities in Colorado and New Mexico, which plan transmission routes, partner with transmission developers and issue bonds to finance construction. The agency’s strategic plan, finalized in November, said the state must streamline clean energy development and take a more active role in getting regional transmission lines built.

Similar findings emerged in a Dec. 1 report by a state working group created by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, which called for a dedicated state entity focused on increasing transmission capacity. The authors cited OPB and ProPublica’s 2025 coverage in stating that Washington is falling behind on infrastructure needed to hit its green energy goals. (Ferguson requested the report following reporting by The Seattle Times and ProPublica last year on the energy consumed by data centers, which receive generous state tax breaks.)

“This would be something that could potentially really help move the needle,” said Joni Sliger, a senior policy analyst with the Oregon energy department.

The governor has also ordered the department and Oregon utilities regulators to designate physical paths through the state in which permitting for transmission lines can be streamlined and to gather financial support for projects that serve the public interest.

Kotek cited the Boardman to Hemingway transmission line in Eastern Oregon that got caught in permitting limbo for nearly 20 years, an episode highlighted in OPB and ProPublica’s reporting. The governor called the state’s handling of the project a “red flag.”

“We have to get out of our own way,” she said.

Kotek’s executive orders drew praise from a range of organizations who appeared with the governor when she announced her most recent moves in November.

“It makes our energy system stronger and more reliable, enhancing grid resilience, expanding storage and bolstering transmission to keep electricity affordable and dependable for every Oregonian,” Nora Apter, Oregon director for the clean energy advocacy group Climate Solutions, said at the time.

The head of Oregon Business for Climate, which represents interests including real estate developers, wineries and coffee roasters, also spoke at the event.

Tim Miller, the group’s director, said that although Oregon has put in place an energy permitting system to ensure siting is done right, Kotek’s order “reminds the state that we also have to get things done.”

Lawmakers now are working on a plan to enact a state transmission financing authority during the next full legislative session, in early 2027.

Rep. Mark Gamba, the Portland-area Democrat whose effort to create such an agency last year failed, said the governor’s office is in discussions with him about the new legislation and that he expects it to pass thanks to her involvement.

“Her leaning in the way she has is what we needed,” he said.

Gamba said he’s seeing newfound support for expanding transmission from across the political spectrum.

“I’ve gotten calls from interests that typically I’m on the other side of the fight with,” Gamba said, “because they recognize that this is an economic development issue as well.”

The post Oregon Faced a Huge Obstacle in Adding Green Energy. Here’s What Changed This Year. appeared first on ProPublica.