President Donald Trump's administration formally rescinded the 2009 "endangerment finding" issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, shaking the legal foundation of federal climate regulation and effectively removing the cornerstone of almost all emission reduction standards under the Clean Air Act. This decision was described by the White House as "the largest regulatory rollback in American history," but it has been strongly criticized by environmental groups as "the most destructive setback for public health and climate security."

On February 12, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced in Washington, D.C., the White House that he would rescind a scientific conclusion — that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health, thereby stripping the legal basis for federal climate regulations. © Jonathan Ernst, Reuters

When Trump announced the move alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin at the White House, he called it "the largest regulatory rollback in American history" and labeled the endangerment finding "one of the biggest scams in history," claiming it had "no factual or legal basis." He emphasized that fossil fuels "have saved millions of lives over generations and lifted billions of people out of poverty." Zeldin called the endangerment finding "the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach," declaring, "The endangerment finding is now gone."

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that Trump would work with Zeldin to "formally complete the repeal of the Obama-era endangerment finding" and stated that the move "would help lower car costs and make life affordable for American families."

The endangerment finding originated during the Obama administration in 2009, when President Obama's EPA, based on scientific evidence, ruled that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, posed a threat to public health and welfare. The finding became the legal premise for all greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act, covering vehicle and light truck exhaust standards, coal and gas power plant emissions regulations, and methane limits for oil and gas facilities.

This repeal means that greenhouse gas emission standards for light, medium, and heavy vehicles will be completely abolished; climate regulations for power plants and oil and gas facilities also face the risk of collapse. Experts point out that if the endangerment finding no longer exists, the EPA will struggle to set vehicle emission standards under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, effectively emptying the legal basis for federal regulation of greenhouse gases.

The emergence of the endangerment finding was closely related to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, where the court ruled that greenhouse gases fall under the definition of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and if they were deemed a threat to public health, the EPA was obligated to regulate them. In the following years, courts repeatedly rejected challenges to the endangerment finding, including a 2023 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Therefore, this latest repeal by the Trump administration is almost certain to trigger a new round of judicial battles. Legal experts suggest that the EPA's rapid push to revoke the finding may aim to bring the case to the Supreme Court as soon as possible; given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, it is not unlikely that the court could significantly restrict federal regulatory authority.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the move as "a corrupt gift to big oil companies," saying "every community from San Diego to Portland, Maine, from Seattle to Miami will feel the consequences." He warned that the intensifying extreme weather could affect housing and insurance market stability.

Democratic Senator Ed Markey criticized the move as "cash for policy," saying, "You give us cash, and we'll remove all environmental protections."

On Wednesday, climate leaders gathered outside the EPA headquarters to condemn the Trump administration's plan to eliminate the legal judgment that underpins all federal climate regulations and pledged to oppose this regressive action, calling it "plainly political corruption." Environmental non-profit organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earth Justice, and the Sierra Club have pledged to sue against the upcoming policy rollbacks.

Jody Freeman, director of the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program, told The New York Times that the government was not "weakening rules," but "trying to get the federal government out of climate regulation entirely."

In specific policy terms, Zeldin and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have already begun significantly reducing car exhaust emission limits. The rules from the Biden administration aimed to encourage automakers to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, as the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The EPA also announced a two-year delay for the Biden-era vehicle and light truck greenhouse gas rules.

Zeldin stated that past regulations "cost billions in regulatory costs, suffocating entire industry sectors, including the U.S. auto industry," and claimed that the Democratic administration "pushed left-wing climate policies and electric vehicle mandates through the endangerment finding, undermining consumer choice and affordability." He emphasized, "We will no longer pressure automakers to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles."

Additionally, the Trump administration plans to repeal climate regulations for power plants and has signed an executive order requiring the Department of Defense to increase purchases of coal-fired power. Leavitt said "clean, beautiful coal" is "lowering electricity prices nationwide."

Contrary to the White House's claims, the scientific community generally believes that human activities, especially burning fossil fuels, are exacerbating extreme heat, severe storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather pointed out on social media: "Our understanding of human-caused climate change today is stronger than in 2009. The Trump administration's repeal of the endangerment finding has no scientific basis."

Obama also posted on social media criticizing the move, saying it would make Americans "less safe, less healthy, and less able to combat climate change, just to make the fossil fuel industry richer."

Former EPA Administrator and Biden administration White House climate advisor Gina McCarthy bluntly stated that the current EPA "would rather defend the fossil fuel industry in court than protect people from pollution and climate impacts."

The medical community also issued warnings. Dr. Lisa Patel told Associated Press that after the repeal, she "will see more children with asthma attacks and premature births in the emergency room," and her colleagues would "see more heart disease and cancer patients." Studies show that air pollution causes about 100,000 premature deaths in the U.S. annually.

However, conservative activist Myron Ebell called the repeal "the most important step to return energy and economy to reason." The White House also claimed that the move would save $1.3 trillion in costs for Americans, but did not specify the calculation details.

This repeal comes just over a year and a half after Trump was exposed to fundraising from oil industry executives during his campaign. The Guardian reported that he had approached about 20 fossil fuel company leaders at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, asking for $1 billion in campaign funds and promising to repeal several environmental regulations and provide favorable tax and regulatory benefits if elected.

Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who is investigating the matter, stated that the move "completely fits the definition of corruption understood by the Founding Fathers" and criticized the "obvious quid pro quo relationship," saying "the scale of the bribe and the brazenness of the exchange have never been seen before."

Whitehouse and Senator Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Committee, have launched joint investigations, while Representative Jamie Raskin has initiated parallel investigations. Former Federal Election Commission general counsel Larry Noble stated that Trump's aggressive fundraising method "violates the letter and spirit of campaign finance law," and a senior Republican advisor called it "a naked pay-for-policy deal."

Although Trump's first term eased vehicle emission standards, it did not touch the endangerment finding itself. This direct repeal is seen as a fundamental disruption of climate policy. It is widely expected that environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earth Justice, and the Sierra Club will immediately file lawsuits.

Amid global extreme weather events and record-breaking temperatures, this policy shift not only affects domestic legislation but may also impact the country's international climate commitments. Previously, Trump had announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and cut tax incentives for solar, wind, and electric vehicles.

The legal and political battle surrounding the endangerment finding will become a key turning point in the U.S. climate policy direction in the coming years. If the Supreme Court supports the repeal, the federal government's authority in climate regulation may be significantly limited; conversely, if the court upholds the existing precedent, the Trump administration's policy blueprint will face major setbacks.

Source: rfi

Original: toutiao.com/article/7607379275297178112/

Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author.