"Gen Z Sues Trump Over Climate Policies, Citing Intergenerational Harm"

A group of Gen Z climate activists has filed a lawsuit against former U.S. President Donald Trump in the state of Montana, alleging that his policies and actions significantly exacerbated global warming. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court, argues that Trump's environmental policies were not only negligent but also directly harmful to future generations, particularly young people who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis.

The plaintiffs, who are all under the age of 30, assert that Trump's administration rolled back key environmental regulations, withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, and promoted fossil fuel development over renewable energy initiatives. They claim these actions constitute a violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as they undermine the stability of the climate system and public health.

According to the lawsuit, Trump's administration took over 100 executive actions that weakened environmental protections, including repealing the Clean Power Plan and reducing the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These changes, the activists argue, have contributed to an acceleration in carbon emissions and environmental degradation, with measurable effects on global temperatures and extreme weather events.

The case has drawn attention from climate advocacy groups and legal scholars, many of whom see it as a landmark moment in the evolving legal landscape surrounding climate change. While previous lawsuits have targeted governments or corporations for their role in emissions, this case uniquely singles out a , potentially setting a new legal precedent in climate litigation. Experts note that the outcome could influence future legal strategies used by youth activists in the U.S. and internationally.

The plaintiffs emphasize that they are not merely suing for symbolic reasons but are seeking injunctive relief to halt the continuation of policies they view as harmful. Their legal strategy hinges on the argument that environmental harm is a form of intergenerational injustice, which should be recognized and addressed through the judicial system. If successful, the case could compel future administrations to consider the long-term environmental impacts of their policies more rigorously.