The Trump administration on Thursday reversed the U.S. government\u2019s longstanding scientific conclusion that planet-heating pollution seriously threatens Americans, erasing a foundational piece of the country\u2019s efforts to address climate change. California, with its ambitious goals for cutting emissions, immediately announced it will sue the administration to block the decision.<\/p>\n
The repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding<\/a> \u2014 a conclusion based on decades of science that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare \u2014 represents one of the biggest environmental rollbacks in U.S. history, and the latest in a series of actions by President Trump to scrap policies and regulations designed to curb the use of fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to clean energy.<\/p>\n The administration on Thursday also dismantled all federal emissions regulations governing vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond.<\/p>\n \u201cToday, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America, referred to by some as the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach,\u201d said Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. \u201cThe 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding is now eliminated.\u201d<\/p>\n The action will restore consumer choice, make more affordable vehicles available for American families, decrease the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks, and save Americans more than $1.3 trillion by removing regulatory requirements for motor vehicle standards, Zeldin said, though experts questioned that number. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is a big one if you\u2019re into the environment \u2014 this is about as big as it gets,\u201d President Trump said.<\/p>\n Experts and scientists condemned the action. The Environmental Protection Network \u2014 a bipartisan group of more than 700 former staff and appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency \u2014 described it as \u201cunprecedented and dangerous.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cThis move is a fundamental betrayal of EPA\u2019s responsibility to protect human health,\u201d said Joseph Goffman, former assistant administrator of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. \u201cIt is legally indefensible, morally bankrupt and completely untethered from the scientific record.\u201d<\/p>\n Independent researchers around the world have long concluded that greenhouse gases released by the burning of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels are warming the planet and worsening weather disasters. <\/p>\n That includes in California, which sits on the \u201cfront lines of climate impacts and pollution impacts,\u201d said Leah Stokes, an associate professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara. <\/p>\n \u201cThe endangerment finding was really about putting the country on a path to dealing with these emissions,\u201d Stokes said. \u201cThis is a policy that basically is protecting Americans, and they\u2019ve decided that they don\u2019t care about that, that no matter what \u2014 the wildfires or flooding or drought or heat waves that are killing people \u2014 that they\u2019re not going to take action.\u201d<\/p>\n Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that the state will sue over its repeal. <\/p>\n \u201cThis decision betrays the American people and cements the Republican Party\u2019s status as the pro-pollution party,\u201d the governor said in a statement Thursday. \u201cIf 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 \u2014 all while the EPA dismisses the overwhelming science that has protected public health for decades.\u201d<\/p>\n The endangerment finding has been the foundation<\/a> for federal regulation of six greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, making clear the government was serious about cutting emissions, said Chris Field, director of Stanford University\u2019s Woods Institute for the Environment.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is, from a scientific perspective, no question that the original endangerment finding was appropriate and important for progress in addressing greenhouse gas pollution,\u201d Field said. He noted that in the more than 16 years since the finding was adopted, the evidence to support it has only increased, as have the effects from emissions.<\/p>\n \u201cAny honest evaluation of that evidence would validate strongly keeping the endangerment finding in place, and the arguments for removing it are ideologically driven, willfully ignoring the evidence that\u2019s out there,\u201d Field said.<\/p>\n The administration first announced its intention<\/a> to repeal the endangerment finding in March. The EPA released its formal proposal in July<\/a> and it received more than half a million public comments<\/a>, the bulk of which were opposed to the plan. Among them were comments from environmentalists, scientists, civil rights groups and public health organizations who argued that rescinding the finding is contrary to climate science and public health. <\/p>\n The reversal also drew formal opposition from more than 50 U.S. cities, two dozen states, and the man who was president when the assertion was issued. <\/p>\n \u201cToday, the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding: the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules,\u201d former President Obama said Thursday in a post on X. <\/a>\u201cWithout it, we\u2019ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change \u2014 all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.\u201d <\/p>\n Support for the plan came from industry groups<\/a> and those geared toward free markets and regulatory reform<\/a>. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce favored the repeal, saying greenhouse gas vehicle standards that rest on the endangerment finding are \u201cenormously costly and ultimately unachievable\u201d and amount to \u201cregulatory overreach.\u201d<\/p>\n However, opposition also crossed party lines \u2014 including from three former EPA administrators who served under Republican and Democratic administrations. <\/p>\n \u201cThe scientific evidence is … clear and overwhelming that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare,\u201d wrote<\/a> former EPA administrators William K. Reilly, Christine Todd Whitman and Gina McCarthy, who served under George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively. <\/p>\n Much of the EPA\u2019s argument for abandoning the finding hinges on whether greenhouse gases are \u201cair pollutants\u201d under the Clean Air Act, and thus subject to federal regulations. A 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, determined that they are. <\/p>\n The agency on Thursday said it \u201ccarefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation\u201d of the finding and concluded that the Clean Air Act does not provide statutory authority for the agency to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emissions standards, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, \u201cand therefore has no legal basis for the endangerment finding and resulting regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf Congress wants EPA to regulate the heck out of greenhouse gasses emitted from motor vehicles, then Congress can clearly make that the law, which they haven\u2019t done for good reason,\u201d Zeldin said. <\/p>\n But the finding has been upheld in court. Over the last 17 years, the EPA itself considered 14 petitions challenging the finding, and rejected all of them, according to the agency\u2019s own website<\/a>. <\/p>\n Opponents said the decision will not only lead to worse air quality but also billions in healthcare costs tied to increased asthma attacks, heart disease and other issues related to pollution. The transportation sector is the single largest source of heat-trapping emissions in the United States. <\/p>\n \u201cAs a result of this repeal, I\u2019m going to see more sick kids come into the emergency department having asthma attacks and more babies born prematurely,\u201d said Lisa Patel, executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health. \u201cMy colleagues will see more heart attacks and cancer in their patients. These health harms are felt by all of us, but they are disproportionately experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, outdoor workers, pregnant people, those with chronic illnesses and children.\u201d <\/p>\n