US Carbon Regulation: What Trump 2.0 Changes (and Doesn’t) for Advertising

Regulation fluctuates. Climate physics don’t. When it comes to measuring the carbon footprint of advertising campaigns, what happens in Washington matters less than what’s happening in Sacramento, Albany — and Brussels.

The Federal Rollback: What Changed Since January 2025

The return of the Trump administration triggered a sharp reversal in US federal climate policy. On March 27, 2025, the SEC officially stopped defending its own climate disclosure rules — the Climate Disclosure Rules adopted barely a year earlier, in March 2024, under the Biden administration.

Mark Uyeda, appointed SEC Acting Chair on January 21, 2025, had voted against these rules as a commissioner, calling them “costly and unnecessarily intrusive.” Paul Atkins, the new chair confirmed by the Senate, had co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2022 calling on the SEC to “withdraw and rethink” these disclosure requirements.

At the same time, the administration announced the rollback of the Department of Labor rule that allowed pension funds to consider ESG factors in investment decisions — a rule Biden had defended with his very first presidential veto.

The federal signal is clear: under Trump 2.0, no climate constraints at the national level.

The California Effect: When One State Sets the National Standard

US environmental regulation follows a recurring pattern. When the federal government retreats, California advances — and the rest follows. It was true for automotive emissions standards. It is now happening with corporate climate disclosure.

The two California laws adopted in October 2023 remain the cornerstone of this movement:

SB 253 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) requires companies with over $1 billion in revenue operating in California to annually report their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. The first reporting deadline for Scopes 1 and 2 is set for August 10, 2026. This timeline is advancing despite legal challenges.

SB 261 (Climate-Related Financial Risk Act) requires companies with over $500 million in revenue to publish a biennial report on their climate-related financial risks. This law is temporarily suspended by a Ninth Circuit injunction since November 18, 2025, but CARB (California Air Resources Board) has opened a voluntary submission portal and approximately 100 companies have already filed.

On January 9, 2026, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez. The court has not yet ruled, but analysis of the judges’ questions reveals an important distinction: SB 253 (factual emissions data) may survive more easily than SB 261 (climate risk narrative), with judges viewing climate risk statements as potentially more “politically controversial” than simple data reporting.

The key point: SB 253 remains fully in force. For the thousands of companies operating in California — including virtually all Fortune 500 advertisers and media agencies — carbon measurement is not optional but an obligation being implemented now.

For a comprehensive breakdown of what SB 253 means for your ad operations, see our full California Scope 3 compliance guide.

New York Enters the Arena: The Strongest Signal of 2026

This may be the most significant development of recent weeks. On February 10, 2026, the New York State Senate passed SB 9072A — the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act — by 40 votes to 22, strictly along party lines.

This legislation, directly modeled on California’s SB 253, requires companies with over $1 billion in annual revenues operating in New York to publicly disclose:

• Scope 1 and 2 emissions starting in 2028
• Scope 3 emissions starting in 2029

Penalties run up to $500,000 per year of non-compliance, with good-faith protection for Scope 3 disclosures until 2031.

The bill must now clear the New York Assembly, where a companion bill has been introduced. The outcome is not guaranteed — previous versions failed in 2022, 2024, and 2025 at the committee stage. But clearing the Senate represents an unprecedented milestone.

In parallel, SB 3697A (introduced by Senator Sanders in January 2025) targets climate-related financial risks for companies with over $500 million in revenue, modeled on California’s SB 261, with a first reporting deadline of January 1, 2028.

New York is not alone. New Jersey and Illinois have also introduced similar legislation in 2026, creating a multi-state movement that goes beyond the California precedent.

The Multi-State Domino: A Patchwork Becoming the Standard

Consider what is happening. California (5th largest economy in the world), New York (3rd largest US GDP), potentially New Jersey and Illinois — these states collectively represent a massive share of US economic activity. For any company of national or international scale, complying with the most stringent standard becomes the only rational approach.

This is exactly what the history of automotive emissions standards demonstrated. When California imposed stricter standards than the federal level, automakers didn’t manufacture two separate vehicle lines. They adopted the California standard for their entire production. The same mechanism is now in motion for corporate climate disclosure.

And there is an additional factor that purely US-focused analyses often miss: the CSRD effect.

The Transatlantic Obligation: CSRD Doesn’t Negotiate with Washington

For multinational companies — and that includes virtually all major advertisers and agency groups like Publicis, WPP, Omnicom, Dentsu, and Havas — the question of US federal regulation is almost secondary.

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) imposes detailed climate disclosure obligations, including Scope 3 emissions, on any company operating in the European market above certain thresholds. Even as the EU proposed an “Omnibus” package in 2025 to simplify and reduce scope — postponing obligations for companies due to report in 2026-2027 and raising thresholds — the fundamental direction remains unchanged.

For a comprehensive view of CSRD obligations and your compliance timeline, see our CSRD advertising compliance roadmap.

Investors Are Holding the Line

Behind the political noise, financial market signals tell a different story. Despite the anti-ESG rhetoric, institutional investors have not abandoned their climate data requirements. Major sovereign funds, European investors, and asset managers collectively representing trillions of dollars continue demanding transparency on climate risks.

Ortec Finance analysis estimates that US and Canadian pension fund returns could fall by 50% by 2040 if worst-case warming scenarios materialize without climate policy change. Faced with a risk of this magnitude, no serious fiduciary can afford to ignore carbon in their analysis — regardless of the White House’s political color.

The US Regulatory Timeline

What This Means for Digital Advertising

For the ad industry, the implications are direct:

Carbon measurement for campaigns is not a political “nice to have” — it’s an operational necessity. Advertisers subject to SB 253 in California (and soon potentially in New York) must be able to quantify the carbon footprint of their operations, including media buying. Digital advertising, with its complex programmatic supply chains, represents a significant Scope 3 emission source for any major advertiser.

The regulatory patchwork makes standardization more urgent, not less. When each state can adopt its own reporting requirements, the only viable strategy is to implement a robust, granular measurement system capable of adapting to any regulatory framework. IAB and ANA members are already seeing this translated into RFP requirements from major advertisers.

The anti-ESG backlash changes nothing about the physics. The atmosphere doesn’t do politics. CO₂ emissions from a data center, an ad exchange, or a video campaign remain the same whether the state’s governor is a Democrat or Republican. The question is not whether you’ll measure — it’s when and how.

For practical strategies to reduce your advertising emissions now, see 5 practical ways to reduce your programmatic carbon emissions.

The Carbon Intelligence Approach: Perform and Comply

This reality is precisely what guided the development of Carbon Intelligence. Our platform was designed from the start on a simple principle: carbon measurement must serve business performance as much as regulatory compliance.

Drawing on GMSF v1.2 and GHG Protocol methodologies — and why GMSF-based measurement is more accurate than spend-based approaches — Carbon Intelligence enables advertisers and agencies to:

• Measure the real carbon footprint of every campaign, every channel, every impression
• Optimize media buying to reduce emissions without sacrificing performance
• Report against applicable regulatory frameworks — whether SB 253, CSRD, or any future state standard

The approach is deliberately policy-agnostic. A tool that only works under a specific regulatory regime is a fragile tool. A tool that rigorously measures and intelligently optimizes remains relevant regardless of context.

Key Takeaways

Sources and references

• SEC, “SEC Staff Statement on Climate-Related Disclosures,” March 2025 — https://www.sec.gov/
• California Air Resources Board (CARB), SB 253 implementation portal — https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
• Pleiades Strategy, “Anti-ESG Legislative Tracker 2025” — https://pleiadestrategy.com/
• New York State Senate, SB 9072A text — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9072
• Ortec Finance, “Climate Risk & Pension Fund Returns” — https://ortec-finance.com/
• Texas Legislature, SB 2337 (signed June 2025) — https://capitol.texas.gov/
• Gibson Dunn, “SEC Climate Disclosure Rules — 2025 Update” — https://www.gibsondunn.com/
• Ninth Circuit, Chamber of Commerce v. Sanchez (arguments Jan 9, 2026) — https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/

This article reflects the state of regulation as of February 25, 2026. Legislative and judicial developments mentioned may change rapidly.