{"id":41646,"date":"2026-02-02T07:15:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T15:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=41646"},"modified":"2026-02-02T19:12:44","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T03:12:44","slug":"trumps-climate-policy-rollback-plan-relies-on-epa-rescinding-its-2009-endangerment-finding-but-will-courts-allow-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/trumps-climate-policy-rollback-plan-relies-on-epa-rescinding-its-2009-endangerment-finding-but-will-courts-allow-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s climate policy rollback plan relies on EPA rescinding its 2009 endangerment finding \u2013 but will courts allow it?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Gary W. Yohe<\/a>, Wesleyan University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding<\/a>, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An
Transportation is the nation\u2019s leading source of emissions, yet the federal government aims to roll back vehicle standards and other regulations written to help slow climate change. Kevin Carter\/Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule<\/a> to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. Now, a Washington Post report<\/a> suggests, action on it may be delayed over concerns that the move wouldn\u2019t withstand legal challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cracks in the administration\u2019s plan are already evident. On Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law<\/a> when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn\u2019t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record<\/a>, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before<\/a>, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several legal issues<\/a> have the potential to stop the EPA\u2019s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case<\/a> that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court started it<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were \u201cpollutants covered by the Clean Air Act<\/a>,\u201d and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court wrote that the \u201cEPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law<\/a>, \u201cto establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science\u201d \u2013 meaning greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007 included seven justices appointed by Republican presidents. Front row, left to right: Anthony M. Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), John Roberts (George W. Bush), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and David Souter (George H.W. Bush). Standing, from left: Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton) and Samuel Alito Jr. (George W. Bush). AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures \u2013 including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment \u2013 and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an \u201cendangerment finding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009<\/a>, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere \u2013 carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride \u2013 threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jackson denied 10 petitions<\/a> received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding<\/a> and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This latest challenge is different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation\u2019s Project 2025<\/a> plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump\u2019s dismissive perspective on climate risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s burden of proof<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act<\/a>, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s a tough task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers<\/a> who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act<\/a>, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science<\/a>. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced<\/a> and its failure to represent the current science<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health<\/a> and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n