The Administration Is Building Two Sets of Rules for Rural Land

On July 10, the administration narrowed the Endangered Species Act's definition of "harm" to exclude habitat modification. Developers can now degrade critical wildlife habitat for drilling, mining, and logging so long as no animal is directly killed — removing the principal legal barrier that has blocked extractive projects on federal and private land for decades. ^[1] On the same day, it appointed country musician John Rich as USDA Special Envoy for American Landowners, with a mission to advocate for rural landowners facing pressure from "large-scale wind and solar developments that may impact productive rural lands." ^[2]

Protecting private property rights and ensuring that landowners are not harassed, intimidated, or pressured by outside interests will be at the heart of this mission. — John Rich

The two moves were not announced together. But they complete a pattern that has been building since April: the federal government is systematically removing legal barriers to fossil fuel and extractive infrastructure on rural land while erecting new ones — procedural, financial, and now political — in front of renewable energy. Start with what has been cleared away. In April, the administration invoked Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act — a wartime emergency authority — to block the closure of five coal-fired power plants. ^[3] Interior Secretary Burgum was explicit.

I think as part of the national energy emergency which President Trump has declared we’ve got to keep every plant open. — Doug Burgum

That same month, the Defense Secretary certified a national-security exemption to remove all Gulf of Mexico oil drilling from Endangered Species Act review, and the administration separately pursued rules shielding Arctic drilling from liability for incidentally killing polar bears and walruses. The Senate voted 50-49 to overturn a Biden-era mining ban in the Boundary Waters, opening 225,000 acres of federal land for copper-nickel mining. ^[4] Trump issued four presidential permits to expand U.S.-Canada oil pipeline flow. ^[5] Then the procedural machinery accelerated. In May, the EPA shortened the Clean Air Act's Title V permit review period for large polluters including power plants and refineries. In June, the administration waived the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act for border barrier construction in Big Bend — confirming ESA waivers are now a routine tool for infrastructure projects beyond energy. ^[6] In early July, the White House proposed eliminating 702 additional federal regulations, targeting environmental review requirements for energy projects and the 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. ^[7] Now look at what has been built up against renewables over the same period. The administration has paid over $2.5 billion to cancel offshore wind leases, ended federal wind and solar subsidies, and directed Interior to "eliminate preferential treatment for wind and solar over dispatchable energy sources." Wind development projections have already dropped from an expected 46 gigawatts to 23.

The wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine. — Alfie Moon

But the Rich appointment adds something new: a political apparatus housed inside USDA. The same department signed a $300 million agreement with Palantir in April to build a "National Farm Security Action Plan" and a "One Farmer, One File" digital platform for farmland data. ^[8] A department building surveillance infrastructure for American farmland now also houses an envoy whose job is to organize rural opposition to renewable energy on that same land. The selectivity is what makes the pattern a policy, not a coincidence. The Rich appointment selectively targets only wind and solar. It does not mention the AI data centers that are converting rural farmland at a scale that dwarfs renewable development. Roughly 1,500 new data centers are in planning, and nearly 40% are slated for counties that previously had none. ^[9] The administration itself designated data centers as critical national security infrastructure. FERC ordered six regional grid operators in June to reform large-load access rules to accommodate data center expansion. ^[10] Yet the Special Envoy for Landowners has nothing to say about data centers. And rural communities have noticed. Some 129 rural groups are now fighting data center expansion, citing farmland conversion, water depletion, and electricity cost increases. ^[11] Local governments across the country are passing bans and moratoriums. Jackson County, Missouri passed a permanent ban. Monterey Park, California voters passed Measure NDC with 86% support. ^[12][13] The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians passed an 11-0 indefinite moratorium; Ferguson, Missouri rejected a $1.8 billion project; Baltimore enacted a one-year moratorium. ^[14]

Large AI data centers are popping up across the country, driving up utility costs for residents and small businesses while creating air, water, and noise pollution. — Edward Baker Lincoln

In Indiana and North Carolina, residents are organizing for one- and two-year moratoriums on data center construction on farmland. ^[15] In Wyoming, Florida, and Utah, massive AI data center projects are sparking community opposition over environmental and economic costs. ^[16] None of these communities have received a federal envoy to champion their land-use concerns. Meanwhile, farmers in the Midwest who want to lease land for utility-scale solar are being blocked by local zoning — 44 states have passed restrictive ordinances — and the federal government has removed the subsidies and accelerated the tax incentive deadlines that made those projects viable. ^[17] The "landowner rights" framing of the Rich appointment selectively champions only landowners who oppose renewables, not those who want them. A federal court blocked the administration's halt on renewable energy permitting in April. ^[18] The administration later dropped its appeal. But the pattern has already shifted from explicit freezes to structural tilting — narrowing definitions, shortening timelines, eliminating subsidies, and appointing advocates whose jurisdiction is drawn to exclude the administration's own favored infrastructure. What happens next will test whether the pattern holds. The Rich appointment gives rural communities a federal megaphone — but only if their complaint is about wind turbines and solar panels. The communities in Indiana, North Carolina, Wyoming, and Cherokee territory fighting data centers on farmland will have to look elsewhere. The administration has already told them where it stands: data centers are critical national security infrastructure. The envoy for landowners is for a different fight.