The Largest Deregulatory Act in EPA History: How the Repeal of the Endangerment Finding Impacts the Future of the Planet, Policy, and Public Health
By: Madeleine Sleeper
Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on February 12 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is repealing the legal precedent established for over two decades that mitigates air pollution from motor vehicles, oil refineries, and factories.
This precedent—the endangerment finding that was issued by the EPA back in 2009—claimed that there is empirical evidence that global warming is exacerbated by greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as methane and carbon dioxide, which puts the health and well-being of current and future generations at risk. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate these GHGs, acknowledging that the damage of climate change is imminent and serious, which led to the creation of the agency’s endangerment finding just two years later. It necessitated that the federal government take action on climate change through the Clean Air Act.
Lee Zeldin has promised that the repeal of the 2009 finding will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion and that the EPA has expanded consumer choice and advanced the American Dream. He is ignoring the known costs of damage from extreme weather events fueled by global warming as he estimates this number. The EPA has essentially scrapped the basis for rules in monitoring pollution from coal power plants, car and truck emissions, and methane from oil and gas refineries—all sectors that drastically contribute to climate change. For instance, in the United States, transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, President Trump cancelled over $8 billion in funding for clean energy projects in October of 2025, and the Department of Energy announced it will allocate over $175 million to continue running six coal plants. Last year was the third-warmest since 1850, and the past 11 years have been the hottest on record. While the short-term benefits of coal investment provide Americans with low-cost energy and reliable jobs, the long-term investment is risky with coal’s heavy contribution to air pollution, global warming, and harmful effects on human health. The American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association intend to sue the administration over the decision. Michael Gerrard, the founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, noted that the future of the repeal could be up to the Supreme Court, which would ultimately decide whether to overturn the precedent.
So what does this mean? Essentially, while the science behind the endangerment finding has not changed, the obligation to act on it has. Without the EPA’s precedent, there is no legal requirement to regulate GHGs that contribute to climate change. The reversal will undoubtedly affect American families, farmers, and businesses. Global warming has already been increasing grocery costs in the United States, with food production harmed by extreme weather events such as intense droughts or cold spells. The phenomenon reduces the amount of usable land for both grazing and crops. Families may also face higher energy bills, as the increased amount of fires and floods will strain water and energy systems. The costs will grow from infrastructure repairs, emergency response needs, and the displacement of vulnerable communities. For businesses, rising insurance costs and electricity prices are projected to hit severely.
Moving away from science in environmental policymaking will not only threaten public and planetary health, but it will also weaken U.S. leadership on issues where integrity and accountability matter, from industry competitiveness and economic strength to basic homeland security. Other nations will position themselves as global, innovative leaders as the U.S. pulls out of climate conversations.
With the weakening of federal global warming protections, a commitment to the planet will require mobilization on behalf of the American people. The effort will involve engaging in state-level action, holding corporations accountable, and reducing personal carbon footprints through mindful transportation decisions.
Perhaps in coming years, the most promising area where change could be actualized is in our power infrastructure. Jody Freeman, professor and founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, claimsthe “best near-term climate opportunity with growing bipartisan support is to pass legislation modernizing the U.S. power sector.” Encouraging compromise could help accelerate projects circulating through Congress that reform the power grid. Transitioning electrical infrastructure nationwide will meet the demand from data centers, buildings, and vehicles that aim to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels while increasing the role of renewables in the power sector. To move forward, Americans must ease polarization regarding climate action by focusing on initiatives that satisfy the needs of American consumers while also maintaining a commitment towards a net-zero future.
