New Climate Science Report Poses Political Challenge for Trump Administration

A pivotal report from the nation’s premier scientific advisory body has presented the most compelling evidence yet that planet-warming gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a direct threat to human health. This report, released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, is particularly impactful. It could significantly hinder the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn a crucial scientific declaration—the ‘endangerment finding’—which currently grants the federal government the legal power to regulate climate-altering pollution. Established in 2009, this finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and well-being, necessitating regulation under the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations subsequently utilized this ruling to enforce rigorous limits on emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major industrial polluters. However, in July, the Trump administration moved to abolish the endangerment finding, asserting that newer research had ‘cast significant doubt’ on its scientific validity. This proposal represents one of President Trump’s most aggressive actions to dismantle federal climate initiatives. Should this reversal be upheld in court, it would strip future administrations of their authority under the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The National Academies’ latest assessment directly refutes the administration’s arguments. This comprehensive 136-page report, compiled by a committee of twenty-four scientists, asserts that the original endangerment finding remains accurate and ‘has stood the test of time.’ It further highlights even more robust evidence that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations endanger public health and well-being, revealing previously unrecognized risks. The report outlines how extensive evidence confirms that human actions, including burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are generating greenhouse gases that warm our planet. This climate change, in turn, intensifies numerous health hazards such as severe heat waves and more pervasive wildfire smoke. Additionally, shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns driven by climate change are adversely affecting crop yields and water supplies in various regions, alongside other significant disruptions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is an independent, non-governmental organization, established by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to offer scientific and medical counsel to the nation. This esteemed body produces approximately 200 reports annually on diverse subjects, from particle physics to neurobiology, and its members are chosen through annual elections. In August, the National Academies accelerated its study on the endangerment finding to ensure its conclusions could inform the EPA’s decision-making. Federal law mandates that the EPA collect public feedback on its revocation proposal and then address every comment received. Certain Republican lawmakers voiced disapproval of the National Academies’ expedited report completion. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, a prominent Republican on the House Oversight Committee, stated in a letter to the organization that this swift action was ‘a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration,’ alleging ‘partisan bias’ among some of the report’s supervising members. The report’s oversight committee was chaired by Shirley Tilghman, an emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs, and past president of Princeton University. Although predominantly composed of academics, the committee also featured a former Chevron employee and a former executive from Cummins, a truck engine manufacturer. Dr. Tilghman emphasized that ‘This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.’ Responding to the report, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran stated, ‘The endangerment finding has been used by the Obama and Biden administrations to justify trillions of dollars of greenhouse gas regulations covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. As we saw in the 16 intervening years since the endangerment finding was made, many of the extremely pessimistic predictions and assumptions EPA relied upon have not materialized as expected.’ Holran added that the EPA ‘looks forward to responding to a diverse array of perspectives on this issue,’ with the public comment period closing on September 22. To defend its proposal, the EPA presented various legal and technical arguments, including the assertion that greenhouse gas emissions from American vehicles represent only a minor fraction of overall global emissions. However, the agency also challenged the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change presents a substantial threat to humanity. It referenced a report commissioned by the Energy Department from a five-member working group of prominent researchers who hold dissenting views on mainstream climate science. These individuals were specifically chosen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. While their report acknowledged global warming, it contended that climate change is ‘less damaging economically than commonly believed.’ In rebuttal, a collective of over 85 scientists authored a 439-page response, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis contained numerous errors and selectively used data to align with the president’s political objectives. Concurrently, two environmental organizations have initiated a federal lawsuit, claiming that the Energy Department’s working group was established in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that the EPA should therefore not consider its findings. This legal action is still pending. Following the lawsuit, Energy Secretary Wright disbanded the working group this month. Nevertheless, the Energy Department has indicated it does not intend to retract its report. In a statement, Energy Department spokeswoman Andrea Woods clarified that the agency concluded the working group fulfilled its purpose ‘namely to catalyze broader discussion about the certainties and uncertainties of current climate science. We will continue to engage in the debate in favor of a more science-based and less ideological conversation around climate science.’ Legal experts suggest that the Trump administration’s strategy of challenging long-established scientific findings on climate change could undermine its deregulatory efforts in court. Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, remarked, ‘It might have been a better strategy if they tried to sidestep the arguments about climate science altogether.’ He continued, ‘Instead they’ve taken shots at climate science and that’s triggered an enormous response from scientists, and now they’re going to have to carefully respond to all of these comments. And if they shortchange any of them, that creates a legal vulnerability. Courts are going to be very leery if the EPA tries to ignore or reject the findings of the National Academies of Sciences.’