The Trump administration is preparing to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” a move the White House is calling the largest deregulatory action in American history — and one that would dramatically reshape federal climate policy.
The endangerment finding, issued during the Obama administration, determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. That determination has served as the legal foundation for a wide range of federal regulations on vehicle emissions, power plants, and industrial facilities for the past 17 years.
Rescinding it would remove the EPA’s primary basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the repeal could save Americans an estimated $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs. The EPA projects average savings of roughly $2,400 per vehicle by easing emissions requirements, along with reduced compliance costs for agricultural and industrial equipment manufacturers.
Administration officials also say the move would effectively unwind the Biden-era push toward widespread electric vehicle adoption by 2030.
President Trump has framed the action as restoring “common sense” to energy policy. At a White House event hosted by the Washington Coal Club, he celebrated coal production and credited his administration with preserving dozens of coal-fired power plants. He also reiterated the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and emphasized support for fossil fuel development.
Energy reliability has become a central argument in the administration’s case. During a recent winter storm affecting more than 200 million Americans, fossil fuels and nuclear power reportedly accounted for the vast majority of electricity generation. Administration officials argue that dependable baseload energy sources remain critical, particularly as electricity demand rises due to growth in artificial intelligence data centers and advanced manufacturing.
Critics of prior climate policy point to economic modeling controversies as well. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently referenced the retraction of a widely cited academic paper estimating the long-term economic costs of climate change, arguing that flawed data has influenced global policymaking.
Meanwhile, investment trends have shifted. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds have lost momentum in some markets, and several major financial institutions have scaled back climate-focused initiatives.
However, repealing the endangerment finding would almost certainly face legal challenges. Environmental groups argue that the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases remains intact and that courts have previously upheld the EPA’s authority in this area. Any attempt to reverse the finding would need to withstand judicial scrutiny and could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
