Mark Uyeda, the acting chairman of the SEC and a Trump appointee, is sounding the battle cry against the recently hatched climate disclosure rule, a cumbersome proposal that would leave public companies scrambling to list every potential environmental risk known to modern man. This so-called rule, which had corporate America bracing for a wave of lawsuits and red tape, sought to mandate detailed disclosures around climate targets and emissions. Thankfully, Uyeda has decided it’s time to turn a new leaf and take the axe to what he calls a deeply flawed regulation.
The SEC claimed the rule was all about transparency and accountability. However, the reality is that it would have unleashed a storm of unnecessary costs on businesses, all under the guise of being “environmentally conscious.” Uyeda pointed out that this new requirement is essentially a political tool to guilt companies into pursuing climate goals—cleaning the conscience of corporate America but dirtying their wallets in the process. As if the rollercoaster ride of regulations wasn’t enough, companies would have found themselves drowning in a sea of compliance issues, with Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions metrics added to their plate.
🇺🇸 BULLISH: Bitcoin & crypto supporter Uyeda is now acting chair of the SEC. pic.twitter.com/hjY6AsXXoj
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) February 1, 2025
What’s especially concerning for Uyeda, and many critics, is that the SEC was inching dangerously close to claiming an omnipotent authority under the pretext of investor interests. According to observers, this climate rule wasn’t just another feather in the cap for environmental activists; it was an ambitious attempt at government overreach—transforming the SEC into a climate crusader rather than a financial watchdog. Legal expert Luke Wake succinctly described the situation: the SEC was flexing its muscles for politically motivated reasons rather than focusing on financial viability.
This misguided rule lodged numerous lawsuits from 43 states and various industry groups, creating a litigation logjam. The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing several organizations in challenging the rule, effectively arguing that the SEC was using investor demands as a flimsy cover for activism. They pointed out that the rule would needlessly burden companies—not only requiring them to track extensive climate data but also placing a significant financial obligation on small businesses indirectly linked to publicly traded entities. In other words, the climate conscientiousness could cost everyone more than just the proverbial penny.
Uyeda’s move expects to signal an end to the madness of the climate disclosure rule, a rule that many believe sprawled well beyond the SEC’s regulatory bounds. Notably, both he and Commissioner Hester Peirce voted against the rule when it first popped up, arguing that it was not only outside their jurisdiction, but also harmful to reasonable investors who care about actual financial outcomes. Instead of overwhelming the market with climate-related noise, they assert that the SEC should be focused on providing common-sense regulation and protecting investors seeking genuine returns.
In a final assessment of this regulatory quagmire, Uyeda echoed a sentiment shared by many: the SEC’s role should evolve around financial integrity, not playing climate cop. There’s room for companies to maintain climate goals independently, but when it comes to government mandates, the line should be drawn. This criticism of the climate rule is not merely a defense against regulatory overreach; it reflects a fundamental belief in free market principles and the notion that businesses should operate without heavy-handed interference from Washington. As the SEC shifts its focus back into the realm of financial disclosures, it’s clear that better days may lie ahead for businesses weary of unwarranted climate agendas.