Washington D.C. - In a move that significantly alters the landscape of U.S. Climate policy, President Donald Trump on , revoked the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 "endangerment finding." This landmark decision, which determined that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare, has served as the legal foundation for nearly all U.S. Climate regulations for over a decade.
The revocation, described by President Trump as "the greatest deregulatory action in history," effectively dismantles the EPA's primary authority to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants and other major pollution sources. The action was announced at the White House, with the President characterizing the previous regulations as "disastrous" for the American economy, particularly the auto industry.
According to a statement released by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the administration intends to "unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs" through this deregulation. The move follows years of efforts by the Trump administration to roll back environmental protections implemented during the Obama presidency.
The 2009 endangerment finding, established under the Obama administration, was rooted in extensive scientific evidence demonstrating the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It allowed the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Without this finding, the agency's ability to enforce climate regulations is severely curtailed.
The decision to repeal the finding has drawn immediate criticism from environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers, who argue it will exacerbate the impacts of climate change and undermine international efforts to reduce emissions. However, the administration maintains that the regulations imposed undue burdens on American businesses and consumers.
President Trump further claimed the previous climate regulations were "a rip off of the country by Obama and Biden," alleging they had negatively impacted American jobs and economic growth. He stated that repealing the regulations "has nothing to do with public health."
The EPA's action also includes a planned repeal of existing rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. These rules, strengthened under the Biden administration to encourage the production of more fuel-efficient vehicles, will now be subject to review and potential elimination. This move is expected to face legal challenges from states and environmental organizations.
The broader implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate regulations affected. By removing the legal underpinning for climate action, the administration can more easily overturn other rules aimed at reducing pollution from power plants and oil and gas operations, although these will require separate regulatory processes.
The move comes amidst growing global concern over the accelerating effects of climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme weather events. Recent years have seen devastating tornadoes in Kentucky and ongoing wildfires in several states, events that scientists increasingly link to a changing climate. The administration's decision to prioritize deregulation over climate action stands in contrast to the commitments made by many other nations under the Paris Agreement.
The rollback of these regulations is expected to have significant consequences for the United States' ability to meet its international climate commitments. The decision also raises questions about the future of U.S. Leadership on climate change and its role in global efforts to address this critical issue.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been a key proponent of the rollback, advocating for the repeal of the endangerment finding as a means of promoting energy independence and economic growth. The administration argues that a less regulated energy sector will lead to lower energy prices and increased job creation.
While the administration frames the decision as a victory for American businesses and consumers, critics contend that it will ultimately lead to increased pollution, higher healthcare costs, and more severe environmental damage. The long-term consequences of this policy shift remain to be seen, but it represents a fundamental departure from decades of U.S. Climate policy.