The Environmental Protection Agency has formally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a landmark climate determination issued during the Obama administration. The move, signed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and backed by President Donald Trump, removes the legal foundation that has supported nearly every federal greenhouse gas regulation for the past 17 years.
Trump called the repeal “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far.” He told reporters, “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy. This determination had no basis in fact, none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law.”
The decision marks a turning point in U.S. climate policy and sets the stage for a major legal battle over the federal government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
What the Endangerment Finding Did
The Endangerment Finding was issued by the EPA in 2009 after the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Court said that if the EPA determined such gases endangered public health or welfare, it had the authority to regulate them.
The EPA concluded that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and several other greenhouse gases “endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” That single finding triggered a wave of regulations.
It underpinned limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power plants, oil refineries, factories, and other major sources. It also required companies to monitor and report their emissions. Over time, it became the legal backbone of federal efforts to address climate change.
The repeal now strips away that legal authority.
Impact on the Auto and Energy Industries
One of the most visible effects of the Endangerment Finding was on the automobile industry. Vehicle manufacturers were required to meet increasingly strict greenhouse gas standards. Mileage requirements were tightened to reduce carbon emissions and encourage the production of electric vehicles.
The EPA also created credits for technologies designed to lower emissions, including automatic start stop ignition systems. These systems shut off a car’s engine at stoplights and restart it when the driver presses the accelerator.
Zeldin said many Americans disliked the feature. “Not only do many people find start stop annoying, but it kills the battery of your car without any significant benefit to the environment,” he said. He argued that automakers should not be forced to adopt technologies that represent what he called a “climate participation trophy” without delivering meaningful pollution reduction.
Under the repeal, all federal greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and engines adopted after 2009 will be rescinded. The EPA will still regulate traditional pollutants such as carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone, which directly affect air quality, but greenhouse gases will no longer be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The energy sector is also expected to see major changes. The Endangerment Finding supported rules that placed pressure on coal plants and oil and gas facilities to reduce emissions. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said repealing the finding opens the door for renewed coal production. “CO₂ was never a pollutant,” he said. “The whole endangerment thing opens up the opportunity for the revival of clean, beautiful American coal.”
Supporters Say It Restores Consumer Choice and Cuts Costs
The Trump administration argues that the repeal will save Americans money and restore economic freedom.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move will save the American people $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs. Zeldin said the Endangerment Finding led to “trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry.”
He said the prior administration’s climate policies “didn’t just regulate emissions, it regulated and targeted the American dream.” He described the finding as “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.”
Trump defended fossil fuels during the announcement. “Over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world,” he said.
Myron Ebell, a conservative activist who has long questioned climate regulations, called the repeal “the most important step taken by the Trump administration so far to return to energy and economic sanity.”
Opponents Warn of Legal and Health Consequences
Environmental groups and medical organizations reacted swiftly, promising legal action.
Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, said, “The Trump administration is abandoning its core responsibility to keep us safe from extreme weather and accelerating climate change.” She added, “There is no way to reconcile EPA’s decision with the law, the science and the reality of disasters that are hitting us harder every year. Earthjustice and our partners will see the Trump administration in court.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council also announced it is preparing to sue. Its president, Manish Bapna, described the repeal as “a gift wrapped package for the fossil fuel industry.” He said, “It is unscientific, it is bad economics and it is illegal, so we’re going to fight it. We will see them in court.”
Former President Barack Obama issued a statement saying that without the Endangerment Finding, Americans will be “less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change, all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.”
Colorado Governor Jared Polis said he “stands by the science” and warned that rolling back the protections creates uncertainty. “Protecting people’s health and making our air cleaner should never be a partisan issue,” Polis said. He added that pollution from cars and trucks harms air quality and puts families at greater risk, especially children, seniors, and people with health conditions.
Medical professionals also raised concerns. Dr. Lisa Patel said the repeal “prioritizes the profits of big oil and gas companies and polluters over clean air and water.” She warned that as a result, doctors could see “more sick kids” with asthma attacks and more patients suffering from heart attacks and cancer.
The American Geophysical Union stated that the 2009 finding was grounded in extensive scientific research. It called the repeal “a rejection of established science, a denial of the struggles we are facing today, and a direct threat to our collective future.”
Legal Battles Likely Ahead
Legal experts say the repeal is almost certain to be challenged in court. The Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in 2007. Courts have repeatedly rejected challenges to the Endangerment Finding over the years.
Michael Gerrard of Columbia University noted that agencies must provide strong documentation when reversing long standing policies. Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA Supreme Court counsel, said the administration could face an uphill battle due to existing legal precedent and scientific evidence.
“Typically, a rule like this would take about three years to complete. This has been done within about a year,” she said. She noted that agencies must ensure they have followed proper procedures before courts will even consider the broader legal questions.
The legal fight could take years to resolve, and the issue may once again reach the Supreme Court.
A Defining Moment for Climate Policy
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding represents the most sweeping rollback of federal climate regulation in modern American history. If upheld, it could eliminate current greenhouse gas limits on vehicles, power plants, and industrial facilities. It could also limit the ability of future administrations to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Supporters say the action restores economic freedom and lowers costs for families and businesses. Opponents argue it weakens environmental protections and ignores scientific evidence about climate change.
The final outcome will likely be decided in the courts, where judges will determine whether the EPA has the authority to reverse a decision that has shaped U.S. climate policy for nearly two decades.
