Donald Trump has proposed or brought forward less than six months after his second term as president, or brought forward actions that are harmful to the environment, ranging from canceling climate grant programs to loosening regulations governing air and water quality.

Many of these actions have become part of the president's larger goal of re-formulating government spending, increasing energy independence and reorganizing federal agencies. But some seem to target one state in particular: California.

The Golden State has been a national leader in climate and environmental policy since his first administration, when he mated with Gov. Gavin Newsom on issues such as forest and water supply management. In recent months, Trump has escalated his California-specific efforts, including Swear to stop The state's ability to set strict tailpipe emission standards - a battle that stretches all the way to the Senate.

Many actions by the President in the first 100 days or so of this administration not only summoned the California name, but also targeted it in disproportionately. The list of leaks of pending plans cut by the Department of Energy includes 53 projects in California (more than any other state) and more projects in Blue State.

In April, the president appointed California in an executive order, directing the Justice Department to look for and “Stop executionState law addressing climate change, he described California’s first limits and trade plans as unfair means of punishing businesses for their use of fossil fuels.

Experts say it is no surprise that the president is making progress in California's environment. Trump received record-breaking oil and gas companies during his campaign. Meanwhile, California, a Democratic stronghold, has set positive climate goals to try to limit these industries and turn the country into carbon neutrality by 2045.

“100% of California is targeted,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of the nonprofit California environment voter. “It’s the same route as everything we see from this president: political revenge towards anyone who disagrees with him – California disagrees with him in many ways.”

But, Creasman and others say California also has the tools, means and motivation to fight back, including through litigation and legislation.

The state has filed or joined nearly 50 legal lawsuits against the incumbent government, at least seven of which are related to the environment.

These include a lawsuit challenging the president to declare a national energy emergency,,,,, This requires increased production of fossil fuels, exemption of environmental reviews, and rapid tracking of projects with potentially sensitive ecosystems and habitats.

“These procedures abuse agencies are designed to respond to disasters and bypass vital health and environmental protections to benefit the fossil fuel industry,” ATTY, California. General Rob Bonta wrote in a statement about the case.

Bonta has also joined a lawsuit against a plan that the administration plans to freeze federal funds for Trump to be "wake up" as a plan, including environmental measures. Other litigation challenges are trying to back down funds to build electric vehicle charging stations nationwide; wind energy development; and the Americorps program that deploys young people to disaster organizations.

The California Attorney General also joined a motion to defend the Environmental Protection Agency's chemical accident safety rules to violate or repeal state and federal efforts and signed Amicus' brief opposition to large-scale federal layoffs by agencies such as the EPA and the Federal Emergency Administration.

State lawmakers including Sens' Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla also threw their hats into the ring and wrote letters to heads of various agencies in an opposition to the EPA's climate grants, the shutdown of the federal disaster tracking system and other issues.

The challenge is a key defensive route for California and other states aimed at maintaining climate progress, said Pete Maysmith, a DC-based nonprofit advocacy group.

"We have to litigate, we have to organize, we have to win the election," Maysmith said. "We need a championship in Congress - many people call home in California - to stand up with something like trying to revoke California's 50-year clean air defense exemption."

Indeed, by far one of the most fierce battles in the state.

For decades, California has been granted a special authorization to set its own vehicle emission standards by leveraging exemptions issued by the EPA. The exemption from the Clean Air Act is crucial in the state’s efforts to limit greenhouse gases and transition to electric vehicles, such as banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.

But Trump has moved to the power to stop the state from doing so, and earlier this month the U.S. House of Representatives agreed with him. Now, the battle will be voted in the Senate, which could happen as soon as this week.

Cliff Rechtschaffen, a member of the California Aviation Resources Commission, believes that the president’s goal is partly due to his special authority.

“I think California stands out because we are the leader in many things, including our clean cars and zero-emission vehicle standards,” Rechtschaffen said. He said that if California loses the Senate battle, the state will challenge it in the court system.

Rechtschaffen said California could achieve similar results, such as raising registration fees or imposing taxes on severely contaminated vehicles, a strategy deployed by Norway that led to nearly all new cars being electric last year.

California could also consider creating a statewide “indirect source” rule that would require ports and other facilities to limit pollution in the surrounding area, which could force trucking companies using these ports to deploy low-emission or no-emission vehicles.

While the Clean Air Act is complex, other battles may be easier. This includes Trump stopping bids for the state’s cap and trade plan, which sets restrictions on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allowing them to sell “points” to other companies to sell “credit” to other companies.

Experts say he doesn't actually have the power to end California's plans.

"It's not something Trump or the attorney general can do. If you want to stop enforcing state laws, you have to go to court, and that's the jurisdiction of the court," Maggie Coulter, senior attorney at the School of Climate Law, a center for the nonprofit diversity, said of the execution of the order.

Rechtschaffen agreed, noting that the state does not require federal authority to maintain caps and trade plans. Neither the EPA nor Congress have set up a national cap and trade plan to seize state plans, “So, under state law, it’s completely legal and I don’t see anything that threatens our plans under current federal laws,” he said.

According to Creasman, a California environmental voter, in addition to defending himself in court, California can also use legislation to attack.

The state has passed two 2023 legal plans that will take effect next year. Senate bills 253 and 261 will require large companies operating in California to measure and publicly disclose their carbon emissions. Creasman said the law uses California’s market size to help drive national policy and could be a model for similar efforts in the future.

Another law passed by the state legislature, Bill 684 (called the Polluter Pays Climate Super Fund Act) would require fossil fuel polluters to pay their share of damage and disasters caused by emissions. The funds will be used for projects and programs to prepare for and respond to climate change.

"As we see the federal government starts to shrink resources, 'polluter payment' is a very important mechanism," Cressman said.

If the federal government successfully removes protection under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and other rules, California could also consider a concept called a “trigger law” to restore national standards set by the previous administration, Cresman said.

The triggering law is enforced only through a specific event or condition. A significant recent example is that several states used the law to trigger an immediate abortion ban after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade.

Creasman added that the combination of this weapon in California’s Arsenal (litigation, legislation and large economies) means that California can have a good defense in terms of the environment.

"It is dangerous not to get close to this moment, and what we are in is fighting for our lives," she said.

Kevin Rector, an employee of the era, contributed to the report.