How does the EPA plan to invalidate a core scientific finding?

President Donald Trump has never been shy about his longstanding goal to dismantle much of America's regulatory framework, arguing, as he did in his first term, that the country must "liberate our economy from years of federal overreach and intrusion" in order to "compete and win on the world stage." Just six months into his second term, the White House is moving ahead with its most significant deregulatory effort to date: a sweeping Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to nullify a linchpin scientific determination that undergirds much of the nation's ecological legislation.

Previewed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin this week, the administration's plan is part of the White House's broader hostility to environmental concerns. But it's also a significant step as a standalone action.

What did the commentators say?

At the heart of the plan is what's known as an "endangerment finding" released by the Obama administration in 2009, which determined that greenhouse gas levels (including carbon monoxide) are and will continue to be harmful to human beings. That finding has since formed the "basis for rules regulating climate pollution" from power plants, automobile emissions, and the oil and gas industry, said NPR. By undoing that finding, the White House is "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion," Zeldin said on the right-wing "Ruthless" podcast. If successful, the EPA's plan to undermine the finding would amount to the "largest deregulatory action in the history of America."

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The EPA's proposal is predicated on an "unexpected legal argument," ClimateWire said. Under the new policy, the EPA's regulatory authority would extend only to pollutants that "cause direct harm to people and the environment" and only in cases where the danger is "near the source of pollution" and there is a "clear-cut" connection between the two. But critics of the effort claim that rescinding the existing rules "lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation" and will ultimately "exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change," said ABC News.

The endangerment finding is taken as a "document of scientific rigor" by "Democrats and environmentalists," said Politico. Efforts to overturn the rule would "require assembling evidence to the contrary," which would be a "difficult task" given the "overwhelming literature on the topic." Should the rule be overturned, however, it would not only impact this administration but also "severely limit the ability of future presidents to curb fossil fuel emissions," said The Washington Post. The Trump EPA's effort is "telling us in no uncertain terms" that America's days of addressing climate change are "over," said Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, to Reuters. The message being sent to various industries is "pollute more," while those feeling the "pain of climate disasters" are told "you're on your own."

Conversely, Zeldin and the Trump administration deserve to be celebrated for having the "boldness to liberate American industry to compete in world markets," said the National Review. As administrator, Zeldin can move to repeal the endangerment finding "on one or both of two grounds." He can claim the emissions covered by the existing regulation are not actually harmful or argue to overturn the Supreme Court's 2007 "Massachusetts v. EPA" ruling that paved the way for the Obama administration policy. In both instances, "court challenges are inevitable."

What next?

The fact that the EPA has "repeatedly reaffirmed" the endangerment finding and that Congress included specific language addressing greenhouse gases in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act makes "abandoning the finding more difficult," NPR said. Still, lawsuits are "a certainty," said ABC News, and it's "likely" the case will ultimately end up before a "very different" Supreme Court than the one that issued the 2007 ruling. Courts have also "uniformly rejected" previous attempts to challenge the endangerment finding "on legal grounds."

Nevertheless, the judicial "ground for overturning the finding has grown more fertile," said Politico, citing former Trump EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler. Once officially submitted to the Federal Register, the new EPA policy will be open for public comment for 45 days.