Washington D.C. – In a move that dramatically alters the legal landscape of climate regulation in the United States, the administration of President Donald Trump on Thursday, , formally revoked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “endangerment finding.” This landmark decision, announced by President Trump alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, eliminates the scientific justification for federal regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The endangerment finding, established under the Obama administration, concluded that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. It served as the cornerstone for a range of regulations, including emissions standards for automobiles, light trucks, power plants, and facilities within the oil and gas industry. The repeal effectively dismantles the legal basis for many of these existing rules and casts a shadow over future climate policy initiatives.
“Under the process just completed by the EPA, we are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and drove up prices for American consumers,” President Trump stated during a press conference at the White House. Administrator Zeldin added that all greenhouse gas emissions standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles stemming from the finding have been eliminated, signaling a shift away from incentivizing the adoption of electric vehicles.
The decision follows years of efforts by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations, including the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. This latest action, however, is considered by many legal experts to be the most significant step taken to date, potentially opening the door to broader deregulation of stationary sources of pollution, such as power plants.
The 2009 endangerment finding itself was a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that greenhouse gases qualify as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. This ruling obligated the EPA to assess whether these gases posed a threat to public health, leading to the subsequent finding. By revoking the finding, the Trump administration is effectively circumventing the legal framework established by the Supreme Court.
The EPA estimates the repeal will result in savings of $1.3 trillion for U.S. Taxpayers, arguing that climate regulations have imposed undue financial burdens on consumers and businesses. However, this claim is contested by environmental groups, who warn that the long-term costs of inaction on climate change will far outweigh any short-term economic benefits.
The move is widely expected to trigger a wave of legal challenges. Experts predict lawsuits from environmental organizations and state governments, arguing that the EPA’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, and that it violates the agency’s statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act. The repeal could potentially expose the United States to increased liability in “public nuisance” lawsuits related to climate change impacts, a legal avenue previously constrained by the existence of federal regulations.
Robert Percival, a professor of environmental law at the University of Maryland, cautioned that the administration’s action could prove counterproductive. “This may be another classic case where overreach by the Trump administration comes back to bite it,” he said, suggesting the policy reversal could create further legal uncertainty and ultimately be overturned by the courts.
The implications of this decision extend beyond the United States. The country’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and its dismantling of domestic climate regulations are seen by many as a setback for global efforts to address climate change. The move could also embolden other nations to weaken their own climate commitments, hindering progress towards achieving the goals outlined in the international accord.
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp criticized the repeal, stating that it would ultimately harm American families. “Administrator Lee Zeldin has directed EPA to stop protecting the American people from the pollution that’s causing worse storms, floods, and skyrocketing insurance costs,” Krupp said. “This action will only lead to more of this pollution, and that will lead to higher costs and real harms for American families.”
The future of U.S. Climate policy remains uncertain. While the current administration has clearly signaled its intention to prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, a future administration could potentially reinstate the endangerment finding and re-establish federal climate regulations. However, such a move would likely face significant political and legal hurdles, requiring a renewed commitment to addressing the climate crisis and a willingness to navigate a complex regulatory landscape.
