- The Trump administration is proposing to revoke the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classified greenhouse gases (like CO? and methane) as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, enabling federal climate regulations.
- The administration argues that current climate policies are economically burdensome, based on “dubious science” and represent “climate hysteria.” Officials claim the proposed changes will restore economic freedom by reducing compliance costs and energy regulations.
- The proposal rejects mainstream climate science, dismissing links between CO? emissions and extreme weather. It cites geologic records to argue warming is part of natural cycles, contradicting peer-reviewed research and consensus from NASA, NOAA and the IPCC.
- Scientists and environmental groups warn that revoking the endangerment finding would eliminate the legal basis for climate action, endangering public health and ecosystems. States like California and legal challenges are expected to resist the rollback.
- This represents the most significant reversal of federal climate policy since 2009, testing the EPA’s authority and the U.S.’s commitment to addressing climate change amid global calls for urgent action.
The Trump administration is advancing a regulatory overhaul that could dismantle decades of climate policy by proposing to remove greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO?) and methane from the list of pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a draft proposal this week to revoke its 2009 “endangerment finding,” which established that such gases endanger public health and welfare. The move, currently under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget, targets the legal foundation for federal climate regulations, including vehicle emissions standards, carbon reporting requirements and clean energy subsidies. (Related: Decriminalizing carbon dioxide: The unraveling of EPA’s flawed Endangerment Finding.)
As global temperatures hit record highs and climate-driven disasters escalate, the administration frames the shift as a return to “economic reality” and a rejection of “climate hysteria,” while critics warn of profound environmental and public health consequences.
Proponents of the Trump administration’s proposal argue that the EPA’s climate frameworks have not only burdened businesses but also relied on flawed scientific claims. Agency officials emphasize that the 2009 endangerment finding and successor policies, including a 55 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, are economically infeasible and based on “dubious climate science.”
The administration’s draft paper labels concerns over climate change as “climate brainwashing” propagated by special interests seeking taxpayer-funded grants. It disputes mainstream climate science, citing long-term geologic temperature records that portray current warming as part of natural cycles rather than human-caused disruption. Pro-Trump sources acknowledge the economic toll of climate policies, noting compliance costs such as $650 state “car repair waivers” for emission test compliance and “arbitrary” energy regulations that, they claim, degrade product quality and inflate consumer prices.
“The debate over climate change is over,” one anonymous Trump-appointed official stated, arguing that recent claims about record-breaking temperatures “rely on a cherry-picked 140-year data set.”
The proposal dismisses alleged links between CO? increases and extreme weather, asserting that wildfires, hurricanes and heatwaves are part of “natural cycles” not influenced by industrial activity.
Critics counter that the administration’s scientific assertions contradict decades of peer-reviewed research. Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the University of Michigan‘s School for Environment and Sustainability, told AP, “The evidence tying CO? levels to global warming is ironclad. Removing the endangerment finding would erase the basis for sensible climate policy, leaving public health and ecosystems to bear the costs of unchecked emissions.”
Climate scientists respond: A rejection of overwhelming consensus
The proposal faces fierce opposition from climate researchers and international bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPG), which attributes recent warming to human activities with “unequivocal certainty.” National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data show that 19 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, with 2024 narrowly exceeding previous highs.
“This isn’t the ’90s anymore,” Dr. Katherine Hayhoe, director of the Initiative on Climate and Energy Solutions, said. “The science is clear – decisions like this will jeopardize lives, livelihoods and global security. The U.S. can’t afford to ignore the existential threat of climate change.”
Even as the administration frames its move as a defense of economic freedom, states like California and New York have pledged to uphold stricter emissions standards independently of federal policy. Legal challenges from environmental groups are also expected, given that the 2007 Supreme Court ruling required the EPA to act on scientific findings of harm.
The proposal to dismantle the endangerment finding represents the most sweeping federal climate policy rollback since the 2009 regulations were enacted. It underscores the Trump administration’s prioritization of deregulation and skepticism of anthropogenic climate change. As the plan moves toward finalization, it will test the legal durability of the EPA’s regulatory authority and its ability to address a crisis scientists warn requires immediate, substantial action.
Watch the video below that talks about how the Trump EPA knows it is possible to protect the environment and grow the economy.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Trump’s EPA head Lee Zeldin needs to undo the ‘Endangerment Finding.’
Carbon capture’s flawed foundation: DOE evidence buried in Biden EPA’s climate policy overreach.
EPA faces scientific backlash: Climate skeptics challenge 40-year consensus.
Sources include:
ZeroHedge.com
NYTimes.com
Brighteon.com
Read full article here