EPA abandons the foundation of greenhouse gas rules

Ben Geman

Illustration of gas coming out of a car exhaust, in the shape of a reverse symbol. — Illustration: Allie Carl/Axios

The EPA has overturned a formal 2009 scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to human health and welfare, President Trump said Thursday.

Why it matters: It's the Trump administration's most direct effort yet to rip out climate regulations root and branch — and make it harder for a successor to impose new ones.

The "endangerment finding" provides the legal underpinning for controlling heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and reflects scientific agreement that global warming poses major risks.
But EPA's move will face immediate litigation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a swiftly issued statement: "California will not stand by — we will sue to challenge this illegal action."

Driving the news: EPA is expected to issue a final regulation Thursday that removes the finding for emissions from vehicles.

The rescission came alongside separate rules that repeal CO2 standards for cars and trucks, with EPA claiming it now lacks authority to impose them.
But by extension, the conclusions could bring challenges to future emissions controls on power plants and other big industrial sources.
EPA last August issued the proposal that Administrator Lee Zeldin called "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion."

Tesla, in comments submitted before EPA's action, was among the companies that urged EPA not to take such a step.

Elon Musk's company said the endangerment finding "and the vehicle emissions standards which flow from it have provided a stable regulatory platform for Tesla's extensive investments in product development and production."

State of play: "We are officially terminating the so called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy," Trump said at the White House, boasting that it would help cut consumer costs.

EPA's decision rests on several scientific claims that split with many mainstream climate researchers.
It points to Supreme Court decisions in 2022 and 2024 that limit agencies' power to craft major rules without specific authorization from Congress.

Friction point: The long-awaited repeal brought immediate attacks from a vast array of environmental and public health groups.

"This decision prioritizes the profits of big oil and gas companies and polluters over clean air and water, the health of kids and all people, and the progress we've made to respond to climate change," said Lisa Patel, who heads the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.

The intrigue: While major industries support less regulation than Biden-era officials sought to impose, some are wary of outright killing the endangerment finding.

For-profit utilities last year warned EPA that the repeal focused on auto emissions could have spillover effects. "[D]ifferent parties will assert that such an action casts doubt" on whether EPA can regulate power sector CO2, the Edison Electric Institute wrote in comments on the plan.
Power companies could face a patchwork of "competing and conflicting" state rules, and get hit with new lawsuits, it warned.

Politically, Newsom made clear he plans to use it as a cudgel, issuing a statement headlined "Donald Trump declares the Republican Party the pro-pollution party."

Democrats, climate activists and others also made clear they will push back against Trump's claim that a repeal will cut costs.

"Repealing it sends a clear message: this government doesn't care," World Resources Institute U.S. Director David Widawsky said in a statement.
"It doesn't care that hotter summers are driving up energy bills and sending people to emergency rooms. It doesn't care that extreme weather is raising homeowner insurance, pricing families out of mortgages and homes."

Flashback: EPA issued the 2009 finding in response to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA.

That ruling authorized regulation of heat-trapping emissions if EPA concluded they threatened humans.
Zeldin has said his interpretation of the decision is that it stipulated EPA was authorized — but not obligated — to regulate greenhouse gases.
"It didn't just regulate emissions — it regulated and targeted the American dream," Zeldin said Thursday.

What's next: Expect court challenges to quickly begin.

"We anticipate that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule against him, so Trump must race against the clock to get a final Supreme Court ruling, in his favor, by July 2028, before his term as president ends," Capital Alpha Partners James Lucier said in a note.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comments from Gov. Gavin Newsom and additional reporting.