EPA Moves to Void Landmark Climate Finding Allowing Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
In the corridors of the Environmental Protection Agency, a seismic shift is underway that could fundamentally alter America’s approach to climate change. Under the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA has taken the extraordinary step of proposing to rescind what many consider the bedrock of federal climate policy: the 2009 “endangerment finding.” This pivotal legal determination has served as the foundation for nearly every major climate regulation in the United States for over a decade.
The Foundation Under Attack
The story begins in 2007, when the Supreme Court delivered its landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the nation’s highest court determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualified as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Two years later, responding to this judicial mandate, the EPA issued its endangerment finding—a formal declaration that greenhouse gases pose a clear and present danger to public health and the environment.
This seemingly technical document became the legal cornerstone that enabled the federal government to regulate climate-warming emissions across multiple sectors of the economy. From the fuel efficiency standards that govern our vehicles to the emissions limits placed on coal-fired power plants, the endangerment finding has been the invisible hand guiding America’s climate policy for over fifteen years.
The finding also established the framework for calculating the Social Cost of Carbon, a metric that helps federal agencies weigh the economic benefits of reducing emissions against the costs of regulation. It authorized methane regulations for oil and gas operations and provided the legal justification for the Clean Power Plan, which sought to reduce carbon emissions from the electricity sector.
A Policy Earthquake in the Making
Now, that foundation faces demolition. The proposed rescission represents more than a regulatory rollback—it’s a fundamental challenge to the federal government’s authority to address climate change. The implications ripple across every corner of environmental policy.
Consider the automotive industry, where current fuel economy standards require vehicles to achieve increasingly stringent emissions targets. Without the endangerment finding, these regulations lose their legal basis, potentially allowing manufacturers to revert to less efficient designs. The power sector, already grappling with the transition from coal to cleaner energy sources, could see carbon dioxide limits on power plants invalidated entirely.
The oil and gas industry stands to benefit significantly from the change. Current regulations requiring companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks—a potent greenhouse gas—could be swept away. Industrial facilities that currently must obtain permits accounting for their carbon emissions might find themselves exempt from such requirements.
Perhaps most significantly, the Social Cost of Carbon, used to justify billions of dollars in climate investments and regulations, could be eliminated from federal decision-making processes. This metric, which puts a dollar value on the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, has been instrumental in shaping everything from building efficiency standards to pipeline approvals.
The Architects of Change
The driving force behind this dramatic shift is Lee Zeldin, the former New York congressman who now leads the EPA under President Donald Trump’s second administration. Zeldin and his team argue that the original 2009 determination relied on outdated science and economic models that are “due for reassessment.” They frame the rescission as necessary to eliminate “regulatory burdens” that they claim stifle energy production and impose unnecessary costs on American businesses.
This perspective reflects a broader philosophy that prioritizes economic growth and energy independence over climate considerations. The administration argues that excessive environmental regulations have hampered domestic energy production and increased costs for consumers, and that a reassessment of the scientific basis for climate regulations is long overdue.
Critics, however, see a different motivation. They argue that the move represents a deliberate attempt to favor fossil fuel interests and dismantle the regulatory framework that has driven America’s gradual transition to cleaner energy sources. Environmental groups characterize the rescission as an attack on both settled science and established law.
The Scientific Battleground
The proposed rescission faces a formidable challenge: contradicting an overwhelming scientific consensus. Since 2009, the evidence for human-caused climate change has only grown stronger. NASA, NOAA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all reinforced the conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions pose serious risks to human health and environmental stability.
The EPA will need to present compelling evidence that greenhouse gases no longer endanger public health and welfare—a burden that climate scientists argue is impossible to meet given the current state of research. The agency must somehow reconcile its position with temperature records showing continued warming, increasingly severe weather patterns, and mounting evidence of climate-related health impacts.
Leading climate researchers have already begun marshaling evidence to challenge the rescission. They point to recent studies showing accelerating ice sheet loss, rising sea levels, and increasing frequency of extreme weather events as proof that the dangers identified in 2009 have only intensified.
Voices of Opposition and Support
The announcement has sparked fierce reactions across the political and environmental spectrum. The Natural Resources Defense Council captured the sentiment of many environmental advocates when it declared: “This is a blatant attack on settled science and settled law. It would leave our children breathing dirtier air.”
State governments, particularly those led by Democratic governors, are already mobilizing for legal battle. California, New York, and Washington have signaled their intention to challenge the rescission in federal court, arguing that the federal government is overstepping its authority and endangering their residents’ health and welfare.
Meanwhile, segments of the energy industry have welcomed the news. Some oil, gas, and coal companies view the rescission as an opportunity to reduce compliance costs and increase domestic production without the constraints of climate regulations. Industry representatives argue that market forces, rather than government mandates, should drive the energy transition.
A Historical Turning Point
To understand the magnitude of this moment, it’s helpful to trace the evolution of federal climate policy over the past two decades. The journey began in 2007 with the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which established that the federal government could regulate greenhouse gases under existing law. Two years later, the Obama administration issued the endangerment finding, setting the stage for a new era of climate regulation.
The 2015 Clean Power Plan represented the high-water mark of Obama-era climate policy, using the endangerment finding to justify the first-ever carbon dioxide limits on power plants. The Trump administration’s first term saw attempts to roll back these regulations, but the endangerment finding itself remained intact. The Biden administration reinvigorated climate policy, using the finding to justify ambitious new regulations and international commitments.
Now, in 2025, the EPA under Lee Zeldin is proposing to eliminate the legal foundation that enabled all of these policies—a move that could represent the most significant retreat from climate action in American history.
The Road Ahead
The rescission is currently in draft form, beginning a process that will likely stretch across months or even years. The EPA must first navigate a 60-day public comment period, during which environmental groups, industry representatives, scientists, and concerned citizens will weigh in on the proposal. The agency will then need to address these comments and potentially revise its approach.
Legal challenges are virtually certain. Environmental organizations and state governments are already preparing lawsuits that could delay or block the rescission entirely. These cases will likely work their way through the federal court system, potentially reaching the Supreme Court—the same institution that originally mandated the endangerment finding in 2007.
The ultimate fate of the rescission may depend on factors beyond the EPA’s control, including the outcome of future elections, changes in scientific understanding, and evolving public opinion on climate change. What’s certain is that this proposal has set in motion a process that will define America’s climate policy for years to come.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
As this battle unfolds, the implications extend far beyond regulatory arcana. The endangerment finding has been described as the “holy grail” of climate policy—the legal foundation that enables federal action on the defining environmental challenge of our time. Its potential elimination would leave a gaping hole in America’s climate defenses, potentially affecting everything from air quality in urban areas to the nation’s ability to meet international climate commitments.
The debate over the endangerment finding ultimately represents a fundamental question about the role of government in addressing collective challenges. Should federal agencies have the authority to regulate activities that contribute to climate change, or should market forces and voluntary actions be sufficient to address these risks?
The answer will shape not only America’s environmental future but also its position in a world increasingly focused on climate action. As other nations accelerate their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United States faces a choice: maintain its role as a climate leader or step back from federal action on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
The endangerment finding, a document that most Americans have never heard of, may well determine which path the nation chooses.
