Trump Administration's Deregulation: A Major Blow to Climate Action

Feb 27, 2026, 2:18 AM
Image for article Trump Administration's Deregulation: A Major Blow to Climate Action

Hover over text to view sources

The Trump administration has taken a significant step in erasing federal authority to combat climate change by revoking the scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and the environment. This move effectively dismantles the legal framework that has underpinned US climate policies for nearly two decades.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced the termination of the so-called "endangerment finding," a key component of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory authority established in 2009 under the Obama administration. The endangerment finding asserted that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose serious risks to Americans' health and welfare, providing a legal basis for regulatory actions aimed at controlling emissions.
Trump characterized the decision as "the single largest deregulatory action in American history," while EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it as a move to end what he called an era of "heavy-handed climate policies." The administration claimed that the repeal would save businesses an estimated $1 trillion, although it did not provide a detailed explanation for this figure.
By repealing this foundational regulation, the US is projected to emit an additional 18 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases by 2055, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. This increase is anticipated to result in as many as 58,000 premature deaths and millions of additional asthma attacks over the same period.
Environmental groups and Democratic governors have expressed outrage over the administration's decision, indicating that they will challenge it legally. California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that the state would sue to contest this "reckless decision," arguing that it would lead to more extreme weather events, including wildfires and flooding, which threaten communities nationwide.
The revocation of the endangerment finding represents a culmination of efforts by conservative activists and fossil fuel industries to undermine federal regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Critics of the move argue that it disregards decades of scientific consensus on climate change and poses significant risks to public health and the environment.
Experts have noted that the decision will likely result in broader deregulation beyond just vehicle emissions, potentially affecting regulations on power plants and industrial pollution sources. This could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, making it difficult to restore or introduce new regulations to combat climate change.
The legal arguments made by the Trump administration suggest that the Clean Air Act only permits the regulation of pollutants that cause direct harm "near the source." However, greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and its associated hazards, such as extreme weather events and sea-level rise.
Opponents of the repeal have emphasized the clear scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to public health risks, including increased mortality rates and heightened vulnerability to climate-related disasters. Environmental advocates have pledged to fight the administration in court, asserting that the EPA's decision is incompatible with established law and scientific reality.
As the US continues to grapple with the impacts of climate change, this recent action by the Trump administration marks a significant retreat from federal efforts to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time. The implications of this policy reversal are likely to reverberate for years to come, affecting not only environmental policy but also public health, economic stability, and future generations' ability to address climate change effectively.
In conclusion, the erosion of the endangerment finding represents a pivotal moment in US climate policy, with potential consequences that could hinder efforts to mitigate climate change and protect public health. Legal battles are expected as environmental leaders mobilize to challenge the administration's actions and restore regulatory frameworks necessary for safeguarding the environment.

Related articles

Local Climate Initiatives Highlight Need for Federal Action

While local governments, like the Board of Island County Commissioners, are implementing comprehensive climate strategies, experts emphasize that substantial climate change solutions require federal involvement. The disconnect between local initiatives and national policies raises concerns about the effectiveness of local efforts in the face of broader federal challenges.

Supreme Court to Hear Oil and Gas Companies' Appeal on Climate Lawsuits

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from oil and gas companies seeking to block climate change lawsuits that hold them accountable for environmental damages. This case from Boulder, Colorado, could set significant precedents for similar legal actions nationwide.

Supreme Court to Review Boulder Climate Change Lawsuit Against Big Oil

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pivotal climate lawsuit initiated by Boulder, Colorado, against ExxonMobil and Suncor. The case could set a significant precedent regarding whether local governments can hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate-related damages.

Political Polarization Contributes to Rising CO2 Emissions

Recent research indicates that political polarization in democracies is linked to increased CO2 emissions from power plants. As partisan hostility rises, the effectiveness of climate policies diminishes, complicating efforts to combat climate change.

Trump EPA Declares No Harm from Climate Change in Controversial Move

The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, asserting that greenhouse gases do not pose a threat to public health. This decision has drawn heavy criticism from environmental advocates and state officials, who argue it undermines decades of climate protections.