President Donald Trump on Tuesday repealed the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” the scientific and legal foundation that required the U.S. government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that threaten human health. The move, paired with the immediate elimination of federal greenhouse gas standards for automobiles, marks the administration’s most sweeping climate policy rollback to date and sets up an expedited court fight with environmental groups.
Announcing the decision alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and White House budget director Russ Vought — a key architect of the conservative policy blueprint Project 2025 — Trump called it the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history. “Under the process just completed by the EPA, we are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and drove up prices for American consumers,” he said.
- Advertisement -
The EPA argued the endangerment finding relied on an incorrect reading of the Clean Air Act, which, the agency said, was designed to protect Americans from pollutants that cause local or regional harm rather than warming the global climate. “This flawed legal theory took the agency outside the scope of its statutory authority in multiple respects,” the EPA said in a statement.
The immediate policy impact falls on the transportation sector. By ending federal vehicle greenhouse gas rules, the EPA also scrapped requirements for automakers to measure, report and certify compliance. The agency said the changes will save U.S. taxpayers $1.3 trillion. The prior administration countered that robust standards deliver net consumer benefits through lower fuel costs and other savings.
Beyond cars and trucks, the repeal places a range of climate rules in jeopardy, including limits on carbon dioxide from power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas producers. While the change may not initially apply to stationary sources like power plants, the coal industry celebrated the announcement as a potential reprieve for aging coal-fired facilities facing retirement.
The legal and regulatory stakes are significant. The endangerment finding was adopted in 2009 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. That determination triggered EPA authority to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and four other heat-trapping gases across multiple sectors. Transportation and power each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas output, according to EPA figures.
Trump has repeatedly questioned climate science, calling climate change a “con job,” and withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, leaving the world’s largest historic emitter outside global efforts to curb warming. He has also signed legislation rolling back Biden-era tax credits designed to accelerate electric vehicles and renewable energy.
Reaction was swift and polarized. Former President Barack Obama said that without the endangerment finding, “we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.” The Environmental Defense Fund said eliminating the legal basis for climate rules will ultimately cost Americans more, despite the EPA’s assertion that regulations drove up consumer prices.
Environmental groups vowed to sue immediately, expressing confidence that courts will continue to affirm the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Several organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, said they will challenge the reversal, setting up what could be a years-long legal battle likely to reach the Supreme Court. Advocates noted that any future administration trying to restore climate regulations would first need to reinstate the endangerment finding, a politically and legally complex task.
The administration’s supporters framed the rollback as relief for industry and consumers; critics called it a dangerous wager against mounting climate risks. The outcome now shifts to the courts, which must decide whether the EPA can step away from a scientific determination that has underpinned U.S. climate policy for 15 years.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
