Washington D.C. – In a move that has sparked widespread condemnation from environmental groups and drawn criticism from international leaders, the Trump administration has formally revoked the 2009 “endangerment finding” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This landmark ruling, established under the Obama administration, determined that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, and served as the legal basis for numerous climate regulations in the United States.
The decision, announced on , alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, represents what officials are calling the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. History.” President Trump stated the move would end a “disastrous Obama-era policy” that he claimed damaged the American auto industry and increased costs for consumers. The EPA claims the original finding relied on a flawed interpretation of clean air laws, exceeding the agency’s statutory authority.
The immediate consequence of the repeal is the elimination of greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles, impacting vehicle models from to and beyond. However, the ramifications extend far beyond the automotive sector, potentially jeopardizing regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas producers. The transportation and power sectors collectively account for approximately half of US greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA figures.
The move has been met with fierce opposition. Jill Stein, a former US presidential candidate and environmental activist, described the decision as “catastrophic,” arguing it “completely defies common sense as well as the rule of law and responsibility.” Former President Barack Obama released a statement asserting that without the endangerment finding, the United States would be “less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change.”
The 2009 endangerment finding stemmed from a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of 1963. The original finding led to the implementation of regulations requiring the measurement, reporting, certification, and compliance with federal greenhouse gas emission standards across various industries.
The Trump administration argues that repealing the finding will save American taxpayers $1.3 trillion. This figure contrasts with previous administration claims that the regulations would have yielded net benefits to consumers through lower fuel costs and other savings. The Environmental Defense Fund contends that the repeal will ultimately prove more costly to Americans, despite the EPA’s assertions.
The decision also signals a broader rollback of climate-related policies initiated during the Trump administration, including the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and the recent signing of legislation eliminating tax credits designed to promote electric vehicles and renewable energy. President Trump has previously dismissed climate change as a “con job.”
The coal industry has welcomed the announcement, anticipating it will help prevent the closure of aging coal-fired power plants. However, environmental groups have vowed to challenge the reversal in court, anticipating a protracted legal battle that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice have already signaled their intent to file lawsuits, confident in the courts’ historical support for the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
David Doniger, a senior attorney at the NRDC, stated, “There’ll be a lawsuit brought almost immediately, and we’ll see them in court. And we will win.” The legal challenge will likely focus on whether the EPA has the authority to overturn a finding based on scientific evidence and established legal precedent.
The repeal of the endangerment finding raises significant questions about the future of US climate policy and its commitment to international efforts to combat global warming. While the administration maintains its focus on deregulation and economic growth, critics argue that the decision undermines public health, environmental protection, and the nation’s standing on the global stage. Reinstating the finding in the future would likely require a new administration and could prove to be a complex political and legal undertaking.
