Trump Administration's Deregulation Strips Power to Combat Climate Change

Feb 26, 2026, 2:17 AM

Hover over text to view sources

In a controversial move, the Trump administration announced the revocation of the endangerment finding, a key scientific conclusion that determined greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and the environment. This action effectively removes the federal government's legal authority to regulate pollutants that contribute to climate change, a decision that could have far-reaching impacts on both the environment and public health.

The endangerment finding, established in 2009, served as the cornerstone of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce limits on emissions from vehicles and power plants. President Trump characterized the repeal as "the single largest deregulatory action in American history," while EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin referred to the endangerment finding as "the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.".

By eliminating this finding, the administration aims to lift restrictions on carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases, which scientists warn are intensifying extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and wildfires. Estimates suggest that the US could see an increase of up to 18 billion metric tons of emissions by 2055, a figure that is approximately three times greater than last year's emissions. Environmental groups predict that this added pollution could lead to 58,000 premature deaths and 37 million asthma attacks over the same period.

Legal challenges to this decision are expected from various states and environmental organizations. Democratic governors, including California's Gavin Newsom, have indicated their intention to sue, arguing that the repeal of the endangerment finding constitutes a reckless abandonment of public health protections. The Natural Resources Defense Council's president, Manish Bapna, emphasized that "the science and the law are crystal clear," suggesting a strong likelihood of success in court.

Reversing the endangerment finding marks a significant shift from decades of bipartisan acknowledgment of climate change as a pressing issue. Critics of the administration's actions argue that this decision disregards overwhelming scientific consensus and poses a serious threat to the planet's health. Gina McCarthy, former EPA administrator, labeled the move as reckless, stating that the agency would rather serve the fossil fuel industry than protect Americans from pollution.

Supporters of the repeal, including conservative activists, claim that it will alleviate regulatory burdens on businesses and consumers, allowing for greater economic growth. They argue that the previous regulations imposed by the Obama administration were overly restrictive and economically damaging. Zeldin suggested that the administration's focus is on balancing economic growth with environmental protection.

However, the implications of this decision extend beyond the US, as the country is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and dismantling existing regulations, the Trump administration has positioned the US as an outlier among nearly 200 nations committed to combating climate change.

As the world increasingly grapples with the effects of climate change, the administration's actions have sparked significant debate about the future of environmental policy in the United States. Environmentalists warn that the rollback could hinder progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbate climate-related disasters, which have already caused billions in damages across the country.

In conclusion, the Trump administration's decision to revoke the endangerment finding represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over climate policy in the US As legal battles loom and public outcry continues, the long-term consequences of this deregulation remain to be seen, with many advocating for a return to science-driven policies that address the urgent challenges posed by climate change.

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.