Trump Set a Deadline on the Endangerment Finding. Here’s What Might Happen.

February 12, 2025

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Jean Chemnick (E&E News Climatewire) The president ordered EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to decide by next week on one of the first major issues facing his agency. -- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has one week to tell President Donald Trump whether the agency could abandon its authority to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

His decision stands to cast EPA into a monumental fight over its ability to reduce carbon emissions, potentially reverberating beyond Trump’s presidency.

If Zeldin attempts to upend the 2009 scientific finding that underpins all greenhouse gas rules — known as the endangerment finding — he would risk being rebuked by the courts. But if judges upheld EPA’s move to reverse the finding, it would accelerate Trump’s efforts to dismantle a host of climate rules enacted under President Joe Biden, while erecting legal hurdles for future administrations that want to curb climate pollution.

...

Trump issued a Day 1 executive order directing Zeldin and other agency heads to brief the White House by Feb. 19 on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding.

The finding, issued during President Barack Obama’s first term, holds that greenhouse gas emissions “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” It’s the prerequisite for Clean Air Act rules targeting heat-trapping pollutants such as carbon dioxide and methane. The finding originally pertained to climate pollution from vehicles, but it opened the door for regulations on power plants and oil and gas infrastructure. And it could support future regulation on additional sources of climate pollution, such as landfills, refineries and industrial plants.

Getting rid of the finding would make scrapping EPA climate rules a matter of routine paperwork, an expert said. Regulations could be undone through simple, swift rulemakings. No replacement rules would be needed.

...

But when the dust settled, EPA could regulate oil and gas facilities for ozone-forming pollutants alone, and not for methane — greatly reducing requirements for industry. And power plants that burn fossil fuels wouldn’t be regulated for carbon.

...

Besides directing Zeldin to make “recommendations” on the finding by next Wednesday, the order also asked him to take the lead in deciding whether EPA and other agencies should continue to use a social cost of greenhouse gases metric in regulations and other decisions that might have consequences for the climate.

EPA’s decision on the social cost of greenhouse gases is due March 21, according to the order.

...

But environmental lawyers noted that courts have rejected past claims by EPA that it can choose to not issue an endangerment finding based on factors other than the science — as when the agency argued that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited to tackle climate pollution.

David Doniger, senior attorney and strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the George W. Bush administration made similar arguments to defend its decision to not issue a finding that would support greenhouse gases regulations on vehicles.

But the Supreme Court in 2007 rejected that view in Massachusetts vs. EPA, said Doniger.

“The only question the statute makes relevant is the science question of endangerment to health or welfare,” he said.

The scientific consensus linking carbon emissions to climate-related disasters has strengthened in the 18 years since the high court decided Massachusetts vs. EPA. Those dangers are reflected in successive editions of the National Climate Assessment — a comprehensive report Trump has hinted he might try to influence.

EPA has also reaffirmed the endangerment finding in rulemakings since 2009 — something Goffman (Joe Goffman, EPA’s air chief under Biden) said could make it harder for the agency to now argue that warming isn’t dangerous. READ MORE

Related articles

Excerpt from Heated: Now, just weeks into the new administration, (Harold) Hamm is watching as his personal wish-list is fulfilled. In May, a Trump advisor told the New York Times that Hamm “wants that LNG pause gone, he wants the California waiver and the tailpipe rule gone.” On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that targeted all three of those things.1

...

Hamm also encouraged other oil executives to share their policy priorities with Trump, the Post reported, and they did. Since then, Hamm’s hand-picked Cabinet leaders have issued a slew of Big Oil-approved policies designed primarily to boost fossil fuel industry profits and destroy competition from renewables.

...

Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, issued on January 20, directs the Department of Energy to reverse the Biden’s Administration pause on export permit applications for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects; vows to terminate California’s ability to phase out gas-powered passenger cars; and directs the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate,” which is Trump-speak for the Biden Administration’s pollution regulations for cars. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro: Three science reports have disappeared from the website of the federal entity Congress charged with leading a review of climate science every four years, according to a POLITICO review.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s public website no longer hosts its most recent annual “Our Changing Planet” report nor its strategic review covering 2022 through 2031, both of which are required by Congress. A climate literacy guide subtitled “Essential Principles for Understanding and Addressing Climate Change” also vanished.

POLITICO compared USGCRP’s current website with archived pages on The Wayback Machine, where those publications appeared under the program’s reports tab.

The removal of these reports follows the Trump administration ordering the removal of climate change references from other agency websites.

USGCRP, which Congress created in 1990 to coordinate climate change research across federal agencies, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The discoveries come as USGCRP readies the latest version of the National Climate Assessment, the sweeping interagency anthology of climate science and its effects on the United States. Draft chapter outlines are due for interagency review in the spring, with public comment coming in the summer. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro Climatewire: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has told the White House whether he plans to abandon the agency's authority to regulate climate pollution. He's just not telling the public.

On Wednesday night, EPA told POLITICO's E&E News that it was "in compliance" with President Donald Trump's directive to brief the White House on “the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment finding." The finding — that greenhouse gases endanger human health — is the basis for all U.S. climate rules.

The president's Inauguration Day executive order gave EPA until Wednesday to produce recommendations jointly with other agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments. But it did not require any of the agencies to make those recommendations public.

EPA didn't respond to questions about when and if it will publicly release its White House submission.

The scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare underpins all Clean Air Act regulation of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that contribute to climate change. READ MORE

Excerpt from Washington Post: Trump officials are weighing whether to repeal the “endangerment finding,” which says that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. -- Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has privately urged the White House to strike down a scientific finding underpinning much of the federal government’s push to combat climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

The 2009 “endangerment finding” cleared the way for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act by concluding that the planet-warming gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. Both the Obama and Biden administrations used that determination to set strict limits on emissions from cars and power plants.

By repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration would be taking one of its most consequential steps yet to derail federal climate efforts. In recent days, the administration has also blocked work that is central to international climate research and barred federal scientists and diplomats from attending a major climate event in China.

EPA officials weighed whether to reverse the endangerment finding during President Donald Trump’s first term but opted not to do so.

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that tasked the EPA with reviewing the “legality and continuing applicability of” the endangerment finding. The order gave Zeldin 30 days to submit recommendations to Russell Vought, the head of the White House budget office.

EPA officials have not shared the recommendations publicly. EPA spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment on the matter Tuesday, saying in an email, “EPA is in compliance with this aspect of the President’s Executive Order.”

Mandy Gunasekara, who served as EPA chief of staff at the end of Trump’s first term and wrote the EPA chapter in the conservative blueprint Project 2025, has been advising the administration on repealing the endangerment finding, according to the three individuals briefed on the matter.

Jonathan Brightbill, who was a top deputy in the Justice Department’s environment and natural resources division during Trump’s first term, has also provided legal advice, these people said. Brightbill recently served on the Trump transition team at the Justice Department and is a partner at the law firm Winston & Strawn.

...

The endangerment finding has sparked legal and political battles in Washington for more than 15 years. In 2007, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In response, the EPA first issued the endangerment finding and then established the first-ever carbon limits for vehicles and power plants.

During Trump’s first term, skeptics of mainstream climate science filed a petition asking the EPA to repeal the determination. But agency lawyers rejected that petition on Trump’s last day in office in 2021.

Allies of the fossil fuel industry cheered the idea that the administration would revisit the issue. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico: The recommendation is now part of a wider review that includes the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the other person. That person said the White House is still weighing how far it is willing to go to attack the foundational science underlying the endangerment finding, a step that would generate political and public backlash.

“They were trying to answer a very narrow question, which was: ‘Does it make policy sense?’” said the person, referencing conversations with administration officials. “The next round is more complicated, which is: ‘Do we want to spend time on it?’ … Pursuing a change, whether an overhaul or a modest amount of change, is going to cost political capital. It’s not going to be free.”

...

Mandy Gunasekara, who served as EPA chief of staff during the first Trump administration, told POLITICO’S E&E News on Wednesday that a review was justified.

“I think fundamentally, since 2009 the understanding of climate science and the evolution has significantly evolved, and EPA policies and future decisions reflect the latest and greatest numbers,” said Gunasekara.

“Whatever policy decisions are ultimately made by the administrator and his team, they should reflect the science,” she added. “And I don’t think that any science should be off limits for reconsideration.”

Supporters of overturning the endangerment finding say they expect EPA to follow a regular rulemaking process, which would include publishing a draft finding in the Federal Register and taking public comment.

“I think it’s the procedure they have to take,” said Steve Milloy, who worked on Trump’s first transition and is on the board of the Heartland Institute, an anti-climate advocacy group. “[H]opefully that will be done as quickly as possible.”

The Obama EPA spent eleven months developing the endangerment finding, and Milloy said it might take the Trump team longer than that. The first step, he said, would be for EPA to assemble new scientific advisory boards to replace the ones it disbanded last month.

And then it will be litigated — perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.

“Who knows, Massachusetts vs EPA may even come down,” he said, referring to the landmark Supreme Court decision that led greenhouse gases to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. “The possibilities are endless.”

Environmental groups quickly blasted the news Wednesday and indicated they will fight it in court.

“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”

...

Doniger added: “We will see them in court.”

Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund’s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding “would be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.”

If EPA ultimately undoes its Obama-era finding, the agency would lose a key part of its legal justification for regulating carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants from most sources, including cars, trucks and fossil fuel-burning power plants.

However, such an action would attract inevitable legal challenges from environmental groups and Democratic-led states. The overwhelming consensus among researchers is that the scientific evidence that greenhouse gases drive climate change and threaten human welfare has only grown stronger in the past decade and a half — and any attempt by EPA to reverse course may well be laughed out of court.

“They don’t have a winning hand. Having the power to do this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not what they’re doing makes sense on the merits,” said Joseph Goffman, who ran EPA’s air office during the Biden administration. “They’ve got nothing on the merits.”

Yet Goffman acknowledged the Trump administration may not care about the legal prospects given its willingness to expand executive branch authorities. He said it could withdraw the endangerment finding and repeal sectoral greenhouse gas regulations via final direct rule all before any federal court issues a verdict on its endangerment finding policy.

“It will be a while for the courts to catch up to them. And it would take even more time for the damage to be repaired,” he said.

Zeldin made the decision with input from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and others. It’s now the Office of Management and Budget’s turn to weigh in, as specified in an executive order that Trump issued on Inauguration Day.

...

The agency issued its 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, two years after a landmark Supreme Court ruling called greenhouse gases “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. The finding was a necessary step for EPA to legally justify issuing climate regulations for cars and trucks. It later expanded the finding to cover additional sources, including power plants and airplanes.

The finding has survived previous legal attacks.

In a 2012 decision that rejected a challenge by states and industry groups, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said the EPA finding is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, as well as “the text and structure of the Clean Air Act, and is adequately supported by the administrative record.” It also found that the agency had amassed “substantial” evidence to bolster its conclusion that greenhouse gases are driving climate change and endangering the public.

The court also rejected arguments that “too much uncertainty” exists about climate change to support the finding.

Subsequent attempts to overturn the endangerment finding similarly fell flat. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro Climatewire: The Environmental Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Trump administration to divulge the details of its effort to revoke a linchpin of U.S. climate policy.

The lawsuit filed Monday (March 3, 2025) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claimed that EPA has failed to produce any records relating to its efforts to undo the 2009 endangerment finding, which gives the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

EDF said it submitted a public records request to EPA after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office asking the agency to report on the “legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding. EDF asked for all correspondence and records of all members of the EPA transition team and political appointees relating to the finding.

The group said it received a reply last week that its Freedom of Information Act request was placed on the “complex” processing track with an estimated completion date of May 30 — which EDF said in its lawsuit is months too late. READ MORE

Excerpt from Reuters: EPA nominees face questions over greenhouse gas emission rules; Democrats want to know if EPA will kill key environmental ruling; Senate set to vote on whether to repeal California waiver to set zero emission vehicle rules

Two Trump nominees to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's deregulatory efforts faced questions at their Senate confirmation on Wednesday about the agency's plans to gut the basis for greenhouse gas emission rules.

At issue is whether the agency intends to unwind the 2009 “endangerment finding”, which cleared a path for regulating greenhouse gases under the U.S. Clean Air Act and formed the basis for numerous EPA climate rules, including on power plants and vehicle tailpipe emissions.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has recommended attempting to reverse the finding to the White House, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The EPA confirmed there was a recommendation, but did not disclose its details.

The Senate environment committee on Wednesday weighed the confirmation of Aaron Szabo to be the EPA's assistant administrator for Air and Radiation and David Fotouhi to be deputy administrator - two key roles that would lead any efforts to unwind the endangerment finding.

When Fotouhi served as EPA general counsel during the first Trump administration, the agency did not pursue reversal of the endangerment finding amid industry pushback.

Ranking member of the Senate panel Senator Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Szabo on his role advising Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that has influenced some of Trump's policies and whether he would implement those recommendations at EPA. Project 2025 called for undoing the endangerment finding.

"I believe in an open door policy with respect to ideas from all potential stakeholders, whether they be Conservative or Democratic," Szabo said. "I am open to any group's ideas."

CLIMATE FOCUS

Democratic senators pressed the two nominees to clearly state their positions about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere and the role fossil fuels play in exacerbating climate change.

Szabo declined to say whether fossil fuels exacerbate climate change, and pushed back against insinuations that his previous work as a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies affects his judgment.

California Senator Adam Schiff questioned Szabo on whether the EPA should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and said Szabo was having "difficulty" giving a plain answer.

"Does the oil industry exert too great an influence on our policy dealing with climate change such that you can't answer that question?" he asked.

"No," responded Szabo, "and I am curious if you are insinuating that I'm somehow under the influence of the oil and gas industry."

Szabo also did not answer about whether climate change had exacerbated California's wildfires, saying "there are many reasons as to why the wildfires occurred in and of themselves," he said.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must issue a finding that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger public health and the environment.

The EPA under former President Barack Obama finalized the finding in 2009, and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law - codified language deeming greenhouse gases are air pollutants.

The Edison Electric Institute, a utility trade group, declined to comment on potential plans to roll back the endangerment finding but referred Reuters to a 2022 legal brief in which it said that the industry has "come to rely on EPA’s authority" to regulate greenhouse gases.

The Alliance For Automotive Innovation said its members have not yet weighed in on whether the endangerment finding should be reversed, spokesperson Brian Weiss said.

Zeldin, a former New York Congressman, said in his Senate confirmation hearing that the endangerment finding gives EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but that the agency isn't obligated to do so. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro: President Donald Trump’s environmental chief announced Wednesday that he will seek to overturn the federal government’s core scientific finding about the dangers of greenhouse gases — along with 30 other key regulatory actions stretching back years or decades.

The broad assault on Obama- and Biden-era rules will include “reconsidering” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 conclusion that carbon dioxide pollution endangers human health and welfare, Administrator Lee Zeldin said Wednesday. Withdrawing that conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, would dismantle the justification for regulating climate pollution across the economy.

“I've been told the endangerment finding is considered the holy grail of the climate change religion,” Zeldin said in a video posted on X. “For me, the U.S. Constitution and the laws of this nation will be strictly interpreted and followed. No exceptions.”

Along with the endangerment finding, EPA will target most of the agency’s major climate regulations, including carbon dioxide limits for coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, tailpipe emission standards for cars and trucks, methane leak limits on the oil and gas sector, and a greenhouse gas reporting program for major industries. And Zeldin will even go after a smaller rule targeting hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas used in refrigerators and air conditioners. READ MORE