How does the EPA plan to invalidate a core scientific finding?
Administrator Lee Zeldin says he's 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.' But is his plan to undermine a key Obama-era greenhouse gas emissions policy scientifically sound — or politically feasible?


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."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

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.
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.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Rafi Schwartz has worked as a politics writer at The Week since 2022, where he covers elections, Congress and the White House. He was previously a contributing writer with Mic focusing largely on politics, a senior writer with Splinter News, a staff writer for Fusion's news lab, and the managing editor of Heeb Magazine, a Jewish life and culture publication. Rafi's work has appeared in Rolling Stone, GOOD and The Forward, among others.
-
The countries that have recognized Palestinian statehood
The Explainer The United Kingdom has become the latest country to weigh in on the issue
-
9 grab-and-go toiletry sets that make packing a breeze
The Week Recommends All the essentials in one place
-
'Thriving' ecosystem found 30,000 feet undersea
Speed Read Researchers discovered communities of creatures living in frigid, pitch-black waters under high pressure
-
Why is the Democratic Party's favorability rating so low?
Talking Points Voters do not like Republican policies. They like Democrats even less.
-
China is building the world's biggest hydropower dam. Is it a 'water bomb' aimed at India?
Today's Big Question River is a 'lifeline for millions' across Asia
-
Knives come out for Pam Bondi
IN THE SPOTLIGHT She wasn't Trump's first pick to lead the Justice Department. After months of scandals and setbacks, is the attorney general's MAGA shelf life winding down?
-
Is Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' cancellation an omen of something worse?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION CBS said its decision to end the talk show was strictly business. But the timing and nature of the announcement has some observers wondering if there's more at play behind the scenes.
-
'For frequent travelers, the costs add up'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Can Texas redistricting save the US House for the GOP?
Today's Big Question Trump pushes a 'ruthless' new plan, but it could backfire
-
A Democratic election in Arizona is a microcosm of the party's infighting
The Explainer The top three candidates are fighting it out for a special election seat
-
Could Trump really 'take over' American cities?
Today's Big Question Trump has proposed a federal takeover of New York City and Washington, D.C.