EPA to repeal its own conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the planet and threaten health
Lead: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday a plan to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” that underpins federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The White House said President Trump will join EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin when the agency formalizes the change, and the administration called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history with an asserted $1.3 trillion savings. If finalized, the repeal would overturn the legal basis for rules on vehicle emissions, power plants and other pollution controls, but the text of the final rule has not been released and legal challenges are expected immediately.
Key Takeaways
- The EPA plans to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding that concluded greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.
- White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move will be formalized on Thursday with President Trump and Administrator Lee Zeldin and claimed $1.3 trillion in regulatory savings.
- An August EPA draft proposed removing all greenhouse-gas emissions standards for motor vehicles; the final rule text remains unreleased.
- Administrator Zeldin previously proposed in June to repeal carbon dioxide standards for power plants, signaling broader rollbacks tied to the endangerment finding.
- Science bodies including the National Academies and major scientific unions have defended the original finding; last year was the third-warmest on record and the past 11 years are the warmest on record per Copernicus.
Background
The endangerment finding, issued in 2009, determined that greenhouse gases posed a risk to public health and welfare and therefore fell within the Clean Air Act’s regulatory scope. That legal conclusion has been the foundation for vehicle-emissions standards, reporting requirements for fossil-fuel companies and other pollution controls implemented under successive administrations. Opponents of the finding argue it gave the EPA broad authority to regulate energy and transportation sectors, a view the Supreme Court narrowed in West Virginia v. EPA.
Since taking office, Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration have pursued aggressive deregulatory steps on climate and environmental rules. Zeldin has signaled a comprehensive review of policies that rely on the endangerment finding and has framed rollbacks as relief from costly regulations. Supporters of the finding say repealing it would remove the legal basis for many federal climate protections and hinder U.S. efforts to limit emissions.
Main Event
At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Karoline Leavitt said the president and Administrator Zeldin would formalize the repeal on Thursday and described it as the largest deregulatory action in American history, citing $1.3 trillion in savings for the public. The EPA has not published the final rule text, so specifics remain unsettled; however, a draft released in August proposed removing vehicle greenhouse-gas standards and re-evaluating other regulations that depend on the 2009 finding.
Earlier, in June, Zeldin proposed ending carbon dioxide standards for power plants, part of a broader campaign to unwind rules developed under the endangerment finding. The August draft also advanced arguments that the original finding overstated risks from heat waves and warming trends, and suggested some benefits from higher atmospheric CO2 such as increased plant growth—claims that many scientific organizations dispute.
The EPA has cited court rulings since 2009, including the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA, as narrowing its authority and informing its reconsideration. The agency also relied in part on a report commissioned by Energy Secretary Chris Wright; a judge ruled last month that Wright and the Energy Department violated transparency laws in how the working group producing that report was formed and managed.
Analysis & Implications
Repealing the endangerment finding would remove the statutory foundation for many federal greenhouse-gas regulations, potentially nullifying vehicle emissions limits, reporting obligations for industry and power-plant CO2 standards. Practically, the change could shift regulation back to states, Congress or leave a regulatory vacuum depending on legal outcomes and state actions. States with their own standards, such as California, may maintain tighter rules, but national uniformity would erode.
Economically, the administration frames rollbacks as cost savings—pointing to lower vehicle prices and reduced compliance expenses—while opponents warn of unpriced climate damages, higher health costs from pollution, and lost investment in cleaner technologies. Quantifying net effects depends on long-term modeling of climate impacts, which the EPA draft and several independent groups sharply disagree about.
Legally, the repeal is likely to prompt immediate lawsuits. Environmental organizations argue that decades of scientific evidence and federal reports form a robust record that courts will weigh heavily; opponents cite West Virginia v. EPA to argue the EPA’s regulatory reach was already constrained. How courts balance procedural and substantive claims, including reliance interests and administrative record issues, will shape the ultimate outcome.
Comparison & Data
| Item | 2009 Endangerment Finding | EPA Draft (Aug.) / Proposed | Scientific Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary claim | GHGs endanger health and welfare | Argued earlier analyses overstated risks; proposed rollbacks | Human activities are driving rapid warming |
| Policy effects | Enabled vehicle and power-plant rules, reporting | Proposes removing vehicle GHG standards; repeal of CO2 power-plant rules proposed in June | Supports regulations to reduce emissions |
| Recent climate data | — | — | Last year was the third-warmest on record; past 11 years are the warmest on record (Copernicus) |
The table summarizes how the 2009 finding enabled specific federal actions, how recent EPA drafts propose to reverse some of those measures, and where independent climate-monitoring agencies place recent temperature trends. Scientific bodies continue to assert that observed warming and increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations support regulatory action to protect health and welfare.
Reactions & Quotes
Environmental groups condemned the move as a major retreat from federal climate responsibility, while conservative think tanks and industry allies welcomed the administration’s deregulatory push. Legal observers expect prompt litigation that will test both procedural steps taken by the EPA and the substantive merits of the repeal.
“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations.”
Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary
The White House framed the repeal as a cost-saving measure and emphasized regulatory relief for consumers and businesses. Critics say the claimed $1.3 trillion figure is a policy assertion that requires scrutiny of the assumptions behind the estimate.
“The single biggest attack in U.S. history on federal authority to tackle the climate crisis.”
Manish Bapna, President & CEO, Natural Resources Defense Council
Bapna urged immediate legal resistance, citing observed impacts—flooding, fires, heat waves—that he says are connected to human-driven climate change. The NRDC has stated it will sue to block the repeal.
“The Obama administration’s determination that CO2 endangered human health and welfare was scientifically flawed and blatant political pandering.”
James Taylor, President, The Heartland Institute
Conservative and industry voices welcomed the move as correcting what they call regulatory overreach; experts caution that scientific assessments and court precedents will determine which parts of the repeal survive judicial review.
Unconfirmed
- The full text of the final repeal rule has not been released, so specific regulatory rollbacks (for example, the precise scope for vehicle standards) are not yet confirmed.
- It is unclear whether the final rule will rely on the same arguments as the August draft or revise its scientific and legal justifications after public comments.
- How courts will rule on challenges to a repeal—timing, scope and remedies—remains uncertain and will depend on procedural and evidentiary records.
- The administration’s $1.3 trillion savings estimate has not been subjected to independent verification in the public record.
Bottom Line
The EPA’s planned rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding represents a major policy pivot that could dismantle the federal legal basis for numerous climate regulations. The administration frames the change as historic deregulation and economic relief, while scientists and environmental groups view it as a rollback of protections intended to address documented warming and associated harms.
Expect immediate and sustained litigation, sustained scientific rebuttals, and a period of regulatory uncertainty. States, courts and possibly Congress will play decisive roles in determining whether the repeal produces substantial, lasting changes to U.S. climate policy or is blocked or narrowed through legal and political counterweights.
Sources
- NBC News (news report)
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (official agency website)
- Natural Resources Defense Council (environmental NGO)
- Copernicus Climate Change Service (climate monitoring agency)