The Trump administration is poised to dismantle a cornerstone of U.S. Climate policy, formally revoking the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” that established greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. The action, slated for , represents the most aggressive step yet in the administration’s rollback of environmental regulations, and a significant win for the fossil fuel industry.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the impending decision , stating that President Trump will be joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to “formalize the rescission” of the Obama-era finding. Leavitt further claimed the move would constitute “the largest deregulatory action in American history,” saving the American people $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding, stemming from a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, determined that six greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide and methane – pose a danger to public health and contribute to climate change. This determination provided the legal basis for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act. Initially applied to vehicle emissions, the finding was subsequently used to justify broader climate regulations, including limits on power plant emissions and methane leaks from oil and gas operations.
Revoking the finding doesn’t simply remove future regulations; it immediately jeopardizes existing ones. Most notably, it will eliminate federal greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles. The administration argues that these standards have contributed to rising new car costs, a claim disputed by previous EPA analyses under the Biden administration, which estimated that the standards would save the average driver $6,000 over the lifespan of a vehicle through reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
The administration’s justification for the repeal rests on both legal and scientific arguments. Procedurally, the administration contends that regulating greenhouse gases is inappropriate because their effects are global and indirect, and that U.S. Action alone cannot solve a worldwide problem. This argument echoes long-standing criticisms of international climate agreements, which often lack binding enforcement mechanisms.
On the scientific front, the administration has sought to downplay the severity and human cause of climate change. To that end, it commissioned a study from an Energy Department working group comprised largely of climate skeptics. The resulting report, widely criticized for misrepresenting scientific data and conclusions, attempted to challenge the established consensus on climate change. The Energy Department was subsequently sued by environmental groups alleging violations of federal transparency rules, leading to the disbanding of the working group by Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
The move is expected to face immediate legal challenges. Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, characterized the administration’s legal arguments as “slapdash” and vowed to contest the decision in court. The core contention – that greenhouse gases don’t qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act – is likely to be a central point of contention in any legal battle.
The financial implications of the rollback are complex. While the administration claims $1.3 trillion in savings, this figure does not account for the monetized benefits of climate protection, public health improvements, and fuel savings that result from emissions regulations. The fossil fuel industry stands to benefit directly from the removal of regulatory burdens, potentially leading to increased investment in exploration and production. However, the long-term economic costs of unchecked climate change – including increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, disruptions to agriculture, and public health impacts – are not factored into the administration’s calculations.
The revocation of the Endangerment Finding represents a fundamental shift in U.S. Climate policy, signaling a clear prioritization of short-term economic gains for the fossil fuel industry over long-term environmental protection. The decision sets the stage for a protracted legal and political battle over the future of climate regulation in the United States, with potentially far-reaching consequences for both the domestic economy and the global effort to address climate change.
The move also highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state-level climate policies. Even with the federal rollback, a number of states, including California and New York, have enacted their own ambitious climate goals and regulations. This divergence could lead to a patchwork of climate policies across the country, creating uncertainty for businesses and potentially hindering the effectiveness of overall climate action.
