In a bold move to dismantle one of the most controversial regulatory actions of the Obama era, the Trump administration has initiated the process to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF). This landmark decision, which classified greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare, has been the cornerstone of federal efforts to restrict hydrocarbon use in the U.S. economy. Now, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the agency is pushing to reconsider the EF, sparking outrage from environmental groups and reigniting the debate over energy independence, scientific integrity, and government overreach.

• The Endangerment Finding, enacted in December 2009, has been the foundation for federal climate regulations, including restrictions on fossil fuels.

• EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has privately recommended reconsidering the EF, a move that could reshape U.S. energy policy.

• Environmental groups and Democrat-led states are preparing for a legal battle, claiming the decision ignores science and the law.

• The Trump administration argues that the EF’s forced energy transition poses greater risks to public health and welfare than gradual climate change.

The endangerment finding: a weaponized tool of the Obama era

The EF, finalized in December 2009, was one of the first major regulatory actions of the Obama administration. It declared greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, a danger to public health and welfare, paving the way for sweeping regulations on industries reliant on hydrocarbons. Critics argue that the EF was less about science and more about advancing a radical environmental agenda. By weaponizing the EPA, the Obama administration sought to phase out fossil fuels under the guise of saving the planet, imposing crippling costs on American businesses and consumers.

The EF became the legal basis for policies like the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to shut down coal-fired power plants and force a transition to unreliable renewable energy sources. These policies, critics say, were designed to centralize power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats while undermining American energy independence.

President Trump, a vocal critic of over-regulation, has long promised to roll back the EF. In one of his first executive orders, “Unleashing American Energy,” he directed EPA Administrator Zeldin to review the EF’s legality and applicability. On February 19, Zeldin reportedly submitted a private memorandum recommending reconsideration of the finding. While the details of the memo remain confidential, leaks to The Washington Post and other outlets suggest the administration is preparing for a major regulatory overhaul.

At a recent Cabinet meeting, President Trump praised Zeldin’s efforts to streamline the EPA, stating, “A lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionist.” The administration has also signaled plans to reduce the EPA’s workforce by 65%, targeting holdover staff seen as hostile to Trump’s agenda.

Environmental groups gear up for battle

The administration’s case against the EF hinges on the dangers of mandating a rapid shift to unproven energy technologies. Critics point to the potential for widespread blackouts during extreme weather, toxic fires at grid-scale battery installations, and the economic burden of unaffordable energy costs. Electric vehicles, touted as a solution to emissions, could leave drivers stranded in freezing temperatures when batteries lose charge.

Unsurprisingly, environmental organizations and Democrat-led states are already mobilizing to block the rescission. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) accused the administration of ignoring science and the law, claiming the move benefits “oil, coal, and gas magnates” who supported Trump’s campaign. Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund called the decision “reckless, unlawful, and [ignoring] EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution.”

These groups, backed by deep pockets and a network of activist lawyers, are expected to launch a barrage of lawsuits to delay or overturn the rescission. However, the Trump administration appears undeterred, arguing that the EF’s forced energy transition poses far greater risks to public health and welfare than climate change theories.

Sources include:

Whatsupwiththat.com

Whitehouse.gov

Environ.news