On Thursday, President Trump announced a significant reversal, effectively eliminating the scientific basis that recognized climate change as a threat to public health and the environment. This move strips the federal government of its legal power to regulate the greenhouse gas pollution driving global warming.
This decision represents a critical step towards lifting existing restrictions on carbon dioxide, methane, and four other potent greenhouse gases. Scientists widely agree these emissions are accelerating extreme weather phenomena like heat waves, droughts, and wildfires.
Under a president who frequently dismisses climate change as a ‘hoax,’ this administration is fundamentally challenging decades of global scientific consensus, asserting that a warming planet does not pose the dangers indicated by extensive research.
Such an action directly contradicts a factual understanding upheld for decades by leaders from both major political parties, including figures like Richard Nixon, whose senior advisor issued warnings about climate change, and President George H.W. Bush, who signed an international climate accord.
This move delivers a decisive blow in the prolonged struggle waged by a coalition of conservative activists and powerful oil, gas, and coal industries. Their aim has been to prevent the nation’s shift from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Speaking from the White House, President Trump declared the action ‘as big as it gets,’ with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin smiling by his side. Trump announced the ‘official termination’ of the ‘so-called “endangerment finding,”’ labeling it a ‘disastrous Obama-era policy.’
The President described the finding as a ‘radical rule’ that served as ‘the basis for the Green New Scam,’ a term he uses to disparage any initiative aimed at reducing emissions or promoting renewable energy.
Administrator Zeldin hailed it as ‘one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history.’ The administration asserted that this change would save auto manufacturers and other businesses an estimated $1 trillion, though the methodology for this calculation remains unexplained.
The core of this debate revolves around the ‘endangerment finding,’ a scientific conclusion from 2009 that established greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to the health and well-being of Americans.
For almost two decades, the EPA utilized this foundational finding to underpin regulations controlling carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants originating from various sources, including oil and gas operations, vehicle exhaust, and industrial smokestacks that rely on fossil fuels.
The Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, projects that by repealing this finding, the U.S. could release an additional 18 billion metric tons of emissions into the atmosphere by 2055 – a volume roughly triple the country’s total climate pollution from the previous year.
This projected increase in pollution could result in up to 58,000 premature deaths and an additional 37 million asthma attacks by 2055, according to the same group.
However, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, appearing on Fox Business Wednesday, reiterated a discredited claim regarding the Trump administration’s perspective on carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas.
He stated, ‘CO2 was never a pollutant. When we breathe, we emit CO2. Plants need CO2 to survive and grow. They thrive with more CO2.’
Despite carbon dioxide’s role in plant growth, scientists warn that current atmospheric levels are excessively high, disrupting natural systems and intensifying the frequency and severity of harmful events such as droughts and heat waves.
In response, Democratic governors and environmental organizations swiftly declared their intent to legally challenge the administration’s decision, setting the stage for a high-stakes court battle potentially culminating at the U.S. Supreme Court.
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement asserting, ‘If this reckless decision survives legal challenges, it will lead to more deadly wildfires, more extreme heat deaths, more climate-driven floods and droughts, and greater threats to communities nationwide.’ He confirmed the state’s plan to ‘sueto challenge this illegal action’ and maintain its own greenhouse gas regulations.
Manish Bapna, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed this sentiment, stating, ‘We will see them in court, and we will win.’ He criticized the EPA’s determination as ‘rushed, sloppy and unscientific,’ arguing it lacks any legal foundation, given the clear scientific and legal precedents.
To revoke the endangerment finding, the Trump administration put forth a legal argument claiming that the Clean Air Act permits government intervention only for pollution that directly harms Americans, specifically when the damage occurs ‘near the source’ of the emissions.
However, greenhouse gases accumulate globally in the atmosphere, creating a thermal blanket that traps solar heat. This phenomenon is altering Earth’s climate, leading to more intense heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods, alongside glacier melt and rising sea levels.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, the Earth’s average temperature has risen by approximately 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit), as reported by Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.
The Thursday announcement effectively removes restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, a sector that stands as the largest single contributor to such gases in the United States. While the Biden administration had aimed to strengthen tailpipe emission standards to promote electric vehicle adoption, this new policy reverses that trajectory. (Note: Regulations on other automotive pollutants like nitrogen oxides and benzene remain unaffected.)
Eliminating the endangerment finding paves the way for the EPA to dismantle regulations on greenhouse gases from stationary sources, including power plants and oil and gas wells—a process already underway.
Although currently the world’s second-largest climate polluter after China, the United States holds the historical distinction of having released the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. This historical contribution is crucial, as persistent greenhouse gases from past emissions continue to drive present-day warming.
Since 2009, extensive and rigorous scientific studies have consistently demonstrated that greenhouse gases and global warming are detrimental to public health, even directly contributing to fatalities.
Recent studies indicate that if current warming trends persist, exposure to wildfire smoke alone could lead to an estimated 70,000 American deaths annually by 2050, highlighting just one of the many health risks associated with a hotter planet. Furthermore, deaths from extreme heat in the U.S. have reportedly more than doubled in recent decades.
Moreover, a warming and wetter global climate is facilitating the spread of diseases. Last year, for instance, 4,947 U.S. travelers contracted dengue, a mosquito-borne illness common in tropical and subtropical regions, while overseas—a 30 percent increase from the prior year, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control.
The 2015 Paris Agreement saw nearly every nation commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. This target is considered vital to avert the most severe consequences of climate change.
Despite these efforts, scientists now predict the Earth will warm by approximately 2.6 degrees Celsius (4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by century’s end. Notably, Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, making it the sole nation out of nearly 200 to do so. His administration also exited the foundational United Nations climate treaty and disengaged from a Nobel Prize-winning body comprising the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island criticized the EPA, asserting that the agency had abdicated its fundamental responsibility to safeguard public health and the environment.
In a joint statement, they condemned the action as a ‘shameful abdication — an economic, moral, and political failure — will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being.’ They further accused the administration of ignoring ‘scientific fact and common-sense observations’ to appease ‘big political donors.’
Defying decades of well-established scientific evidence, President Trump has publicly dismissed climate warming projections as the work of ‘stupid people.’ His administration has actively promoted policies aimed at reducing the cost and ease of burning coal, gas, and oil, simultaneously hindering the development of cleaner energy alternatives like solar and wind power.
For climate change deniers, overturning the endangerment finding has long been a paramount objective. If this repeal withstands legal challenges, it could create a lasting impediment, preventing future administrations from re-establishing regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Zeldin and other administration figures argued that the endangerment finding stifled economic growth. They contended that compelling the EPA to address climate change restricted consumer choice by limiting the variety of available automobile models.
While some business factions applauded the administration’s moves, others remained noticeably silent or offered only subdued responses. This mixed reaction stems from the fact that several prominent trade organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have shifted their stance in recent years to acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change, despite their past opposition to the endangerment finding.
Furthermore, many businesses expressed concerns to the EPA regarding the legal ramifications of the proposed repeal. They feared that individual states might respond by implementing their own, stricter greenhouse gas regulations, forcing companies to navigate a complex and inconsistent legal landscape across different regions.
Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, an influential group representing oil and gas companies, stated that while the industry desires an end to automobile-specific regulations, it believes the government should maintain limits on carbon dioxide and methane emissions from power plants and oil and gas wells. Many leading oil and gas companies have already invested significant capital in pollution control technologies.
Mr. Sommers elaborated in a recent call with journalists, explaining, ‘One of the reasons why we wouldn’t support that is because we do support the federal regulation of methane, and we’re focused on reducing our emissions as an industry.’
The campaign to revoke the endangerment finding predates President Trump’s re-election, having been a central goal within Project 2025, a conservative initiative outlining a comprehensive overhaul of the federal government.
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a conservative research group advocating for fossil fuel use, argued that ‘The endangerment finding has been abused by the E.P.A. to justify regulations that do not comport with the Clean Air Act.’ He added, ‘If Congress thinks the E.P.A. should regulate CO2 as a pollutant they should say so affirmatively in law so that E.P.A. has a clear mandate.’
By abandoning the endangerment finding, Mr. Zeldin has significantly departed from his prior stances as a Congressman representing Long Island from 2019 to 2023. During his tenure, he voted on multiple occasions to address climate change, notably opposing an amendment to a spending bill that sought to prevent the EPA from utilizing the endangerment finding. He even participated in the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House.
In 2022, Mr. Zeldin unsuccessfully campaigned for New York governor, advocating for expanded natural gas drilling. Upon his appointment as Mr. Trump’s EPA administrator, he openly mocked climate change, expressing a desire to ‘drive a dagger’ through it by rescinding the endangerment finding.