/>iSEC Commissioner Uyeda, one of the Republican appointees to the Securities & Exchange Commission, recently stated (in remarks at the 2025 “SEC Speaks” Conference) that the SEC should not rescind the climate disclosure rule promulgated under the Biden Administration. This was somewhat surprising, as a number of opponents of the climate disclosure rule have suggested that such a rescission would be the most effective way of overturning the climate disclosure rule without the risks of an adverse decision by the courts.
Importantly, though, these remarks by Commissioner Uyeda were not based on any newfound support for the policies embodied by the climate disclosure rule; rather, Commissioner Uyeda viewed such an action as “plac[ing] a significant strain on the Commission's resources” and thought the SEC's staff could be deployed more efficiently to address the Trump Administration's policy priorities. Further, Commissioner Uyeda suggested that he saw value in having the courts opine upon the merits of the climate disclosure rule, as such a decision would answer key questions of statutory authority and compliance with the [Administrative Procedures Act].” In other words, Commissioner Uyeda appears to believe that a court decision concerning the climate disclosure rule could potentially limit future efforts by the SEC to enact regulations beyond what he perceives as the agency's appropriate remit. Fundamentally, this is a dispute over tactics as to the best method to repeal the climate disclosure rule, and Commissioner Uyeda--one of the key voices on the matter--appears to view the courts as the more effective option rather than action by the SEC itself.
Some have suggested that the Commission could simply move to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule, which I view as a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the key questions of statutory authority and compliance with the APA. . . . For the Commission to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule—and address the countless factual findings discussed in that 885-page release—would place a significant strain on the Commission’s resources. This effort would be a difficult lift, and it would potentially take away staff resources needed to advance the regulatory regime with respect to crypto and capital formation. Further, any such recission would further be likely challenged in the courts. If such rescission is struck down, then the question of whether the original climate-related disclosure rule was lawfully adopted would escape judicial review altogether.
