The Trump administration’s top securities official has taken his first public action against a pending rule that would require US-listed companies, including some in shipping, to disclose their carbon emissions.
Mark Uyeda, acting chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, said he ordered staff to take steps to halt litigation defending the rule, signalling that it will eventually be killed.
“The rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy,” he said.
Uyeda had voted against the climate reporting requirements in a three-to-two vote last year before President Donald Trump named him to temporarily lead the commission.
The regulation would require many public companies to disclose direct emissions known as Scope 1 and energy-purchase emissions known as Scope 2, but not indirect Scope 3 supply-chain emissions.
It is scheduled to enter force in the 2026 fiscal year for large companies, and 2028 for others.
The SEC has been defending the rule before the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But when Trump’s nominee for permanent chairman, Paul Atkins, is confirmed by the Senate, the SEC will be majority Republican.
Plus, Uyeda cited Trump’s freeze on all regulations.
He told commission staff to inform the Eighth Circuit court of the changes in circumstances.
“The commission’s briefs previously submitted in the cases consolidated in the Eighth Circuit do not reflect my views,” he said.
“The briefs defend the commission’s adoption of the rule, but I continue to question the statutory authority of the commission to adopt the Rule, the need for the Rule, and the evaluation of costs and benefits.”
He said the SEC will promptly notify the court of its updated position on the rule.
Democrat commissioner Caroline Crenshaw issued a statement disagreeing with the acting chairman’s move.
She complained that Uyeda acted without the input of other SEC members.
“I agree wholeheartedly with the acting Chairman that agencies and those who lead them must act within the boundaries of constitutional and statutory authority,” she said.
“Nonetheless, I dispute with equal vigour the notion that the agency acted outside of its remit. It did not.”
