A groundbreaking report from the country’s top scientific advisory group has just confirmed, with the strongest evidence yet, that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a significant threat to human health.
This new assessment from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine carries immense weight, as it directly challenges the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn a crucial “endangerment finding.” This finding is the very foundation of the federal government’s power to regulate the climate-altering pollution we face.
Originally established in 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency, the endangerment finding declared that warming gases endanger public health and welfare, thus warranting regulation under the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations subsequently leveraged this finding to impose stringent limits on greenhouse gas emissions across various sectors, including vehicles, power plants, and industrial operations.
However, in July, the Trump administration moved to cancel this finding, arguing that newer research had supposedly “cast significant doubt” on its validity.
This proposal represents a major effort by President Trump to undermine federal climate initiatives. Should this decision be upheld in court, it would strip future administrations of their critical authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Yet, the National Academies’ new 136-page report, compiled by two dozen scientists, directly refutes these claims. It asserts that the original endangerment finding was not only accurate but has also “stood the test of time.” The report highlights even more robust evidence that increasing greenhouse gas levels endanger public health and welfare, revealing previously unrecognized risks.
The document emphasizes that overwhelming evidence confirms human activities—like burning fossil fuels and deforestation—are releasing planet-warming gases. This, in turn, is intensifying numerous health threats, from severe heat waves to escalating wildfire smoke. Moreover, climate-induced shifts in temperature and precipitation are negatively impacting agriculture and reducing water supplies in various regions, leading to further disruptions.
Established by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is an independent advisory organization. Its core mission is to provide expert guidance on scientific and medical matters to the nation. This prestigious body produces around 200 reports annually, covering diverse fields from particle physics to neurobiology, with new members elected each year.
To ensure timely input for the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making, the National Academies accelerated its study on the endangerment finding in August. Federal law mandates that the EPA must gather public feedback on its proposal to revoke the finding and address every comment received.
Congressional Republicans voiced criticism over the swift completion of the report. Representative James Comer, a prominent Republican on the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to the Academies, labeling the expedited decision as “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration” and alleging “partisan bias” among some committee members.
Shirley Tilghman, an emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs and former Princeton University president, chaired the committee. Although primarily composed of academics, the committee also included individuals with industry backgrounds, such as a former Chevron employee and a former Cummins (truck engine manufacturer) executive.
In a public statement, Dr. Tilghman clarified the study’s purpose: “This study was conducted with the primary goal of providing information to the EPA, in response to its public comment period, as it reviews the endangerment finding. We are optimistic that the evidence presented here offers a robust scientific foundation for informed policy decisions.”
EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran responded to the report, stating that “The endangerment finding has served as the basis for trillions of dollars in greenhouse gas regulations by the Obama and Biden administrations, impacting new vehicles and engines. However, over the 16 years since its inception, many of the EPA’s initial pessimistic forecasts and assumptions have not unfolded as predicted.”
She added that the EPA “eagerly anticipates addressing a wide range of viewpoints on this matter” before the public comment period concludes on September 22.
The EPA’s justification for its proposal included various legal and technical arguments, such as the claim that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. vehicles represent only a minor fraction of overall global emissions.
Furthermore, the agency attempted to dispute the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change presents a serious threat to humanity. It referenced a report commissioned by the Energy Department, authored by a select group of five researchers known for their dissenting views on mainstream climate science. These individuals, personally chosen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, produced a report that, while acknowledging global warming, downplayed its economic impact, suggesting it is “less damaging economically than commonly believed.”
In a powerful counter-response, over 85 scientists co-authored a 439-page rebuttal, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis was deeply flawed, containing numerous errors and selectively chosen data to align with the President’s political objectives.
Independently, two environmental organizations initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging that the Energy Department’s working group was established in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and therefore its analysis should not be considered by the EPA. This legal challenge is currently active.
Following the lawsuit, Secretary Wright disbanded the working group this month, although the Energy Department has stated it has no intention of retracting its report.
Energy Department spokeswoman Andrea Woods commented that the agency believes the working group fulfilled its goal of “sparking a wider discussion about the certainties and uncertainties of current climate science.” She affirmed their commitment to fostering “a more science-based and less ideological conversation” on the topic.
Legal experts suggest that the Trump administration’s efforts to dispute established scientific findings on climate change could significantly hinder its deregulatory agenda in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, remarked, “They might have been better off avoiding arguments about climate science entirely.”
“Instead,” Parenteau continued, “they attacked climate science, which has provoked a massive reaction from scientists. Now, they must meticulously address all these public comments. Any attempt to dismiss or inadequately respond to them will create significant legal weaknesses. Courts will be highly skeptical if the EPA tries to disregard the National Academies of Sciences’ findings.”