Trump-era Emails Reveal Major Polluters Were Exempted from Clean Air Act Rules

In March 2025, the Trump administration offered coal-fired power plants, chemical manufacturers, and other industrial facilities a significant perk: exemption from key provisions of the Clean Air Act, one of the nation’s most critical environmental laws. This deal came with a simple requirement—an email requesting the exemption. Within weeks, executives from major industries flooded an EPA inbox with requests, seeking relief from costly environmental regulations that would safeguard public health but increase their company’s profits.

ProPublica obtained thousands of pages of emails exchanged between industry leaders and Trump administration officials, offering unprecedented insight into this controversial deregulatory effort. Richard Shaffer, asset manager at Scrubgrass Reclamation Company, emailed to request an exemption for a Pennsylvania power plant that burns coal waste and generates electricity for cryptocurrency mining. He argued that keeping environmental compliance costs low was essential “for the security of the United States.” Similarly, Citgo Petroleum Corporation lawyer Ann Al-Bahish sought exemptions for refineries in Illinois, Louisiana, and Texas, despite their history of Clean Air Act violations. The EPA had previously concluded these rules would provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants.

Kevin Wagner, vice president of Sterigenics, a medical sterilizer company, emailed requesting exemptions for nine facilities emitting carcinogenic ethylene oxide gas, including those near densely populated areas like Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. Over 45,000 people, disproportionately non-white, live within a mile of these facilities. Both companies received approvals in July proclamations.

This email-driven process bypassed rigorous application requirements, raising concerns about the Trump administration’s commitment to public health and environmental protection. The exemptions underscored a broader pattern of deregulation, with critics arguing that such actions prioritize corporate interests over the well-being of communities already burdened by pollution.