Trump’s EPA Shakes Up Climate Rules: Obama-Era Regs On Chopping Block

Paul Riverbank, 2/11/2026The Trump administration’s move to revoke the EPA’s endangerment finding marks a seismic shift in US climate policy, igniting fierce debate over economic growth versus environmental and health risks—while setting the stage for major legal and political showdowns.

Back in the Obama administration, scientists warned that carbon dioxide and related emissions were damaging both to people and the wider environment. That conclusion, established under the Clean Air Act, gave the EPA broad leeway to go after emissions from vehicles, power plants, and more. Without that foundation, the EPA’s legal footing for most climate policies wobbles, perhaps irreparably.

Inside the Trump administration, officials are touting the possible repeal as a decisive step towards “unleashing American energy,” highlighting the economic drag they believe is tied to strict environmental rules. Karoline Leavitt, the administration’s press secretary, didn’t mince words, calling the shift “the most significant deregulatory action in history.” The message is clear: proponents see job growth, lower costs, and less federal interference.

Lee Zeldin, who cut his teeth in Congress and now heads the EPA, recently argued that the 2009 finding enabled Democrats to clamp down on vast swaths of industry. "Created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence ... segments of our economy," Zeldin said—his frustration unmistakable. He’s convinced those policies come with a heavy price tag for ordinary Americans.

Of course, the usual partisan lines are already being drawn. Environmentalists, never ones to sit quietly, have decried the move as shortsighted at best, reckless at worst. Peter Zalzal with the Environmental Defense Fund warned that scrapping the rule paves the way for dirtier air—potentially higher rates of asthma, respiratory problems, and thousands of avoidable early deaths. He’s not speaking in broad hypotheticals, either; advocates point to a “mountain of scientific evidence,” as Zalzal put it, noting the severe climate events that have battered communities from coast to coast in recent years.

There’s a legal thicket awaiting any final rollback. The Supreme Court, in a landmark 2007 case, confirmed that greenhouse gases are covered by the Clean Air Act. Since then, multiple courts have sided with the federal government’s right—even its obligation—to act on the issue. Attacks on the endangerment finding will almost certainly spark immediate lawsuits, with environmental groups ready to take the fight to courtrooms nationwide.

As for the scientific basis for the finding, it’s only gotten firmer with time. Just last year, a blue-ribbon panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that the 2009 policy was not only sound but reinforced by a decade’s worth of new evidence. Their verdict? The harm from human-caused greenhouse gases is, in their words, “beyond scientific dispute.”

Brigit Hirsch, speaking for the EPA, played up the need to reconsider what she called “one of the most damaging [regulatory] decisions in modern history.” She insisted the agency is committed to “delivering a historic action for the American people,” though specifics remain under wraps.

If there’s anything certain here, it’s the storm of debate now gathering on Capitol Hill and across the country. For some, this is a chance to revitalize American industry and trim red tape. For others, it’s a troubling sidestep on the road to combating the planet’s most pressing crisis. However the issue unfolds, it’s destined to shape U.S. environmental policy and legal precedent for years to come.

The White House is gearing up for a major shakeup in U.S. climate policy, with the Environmental Protection Agency said to be eyeing the rollback of a foundational rule from 2009. This move, if it materializes, would essentially gut what's known as the "endangerment finding"—the legal anchor that’s allowed the government to regulate greenhouse gases for over a decade.Back in the Obama administration, scientists warned that carbon dioxide and related emissions were damaging both to people and the wider environment. That conclusion, established under the Clean Air Act, gave the EPA broad leeway to go after emissions from vehicles, power plants, and more. Without that foundation, the EPA’s legal footing for most climate policies wobbles, perhaps irreparably.Inside the Trump administration, officials are touting the possible repeal as a decisive step towards “unleashing American energy,” highlighting the economic drag they believe is tied to strict environmental rules. Karoline Leavitt, the administration’s press secretary, didn’t mince words, calling the shift “the most significant deregulatory action in history.” The message is clear: proponents see job growth, lower costs, and less federal interference.Lee Zeldin, who cut his teeth in Congress and now heads the EPA, recently argued that the 2009 finding enabled Democrats to clamp down on vast swaths of industry. "Created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence ... segments of our economy," Zeldin said—his frustration unmistakable. He’s convinced those policies come with a heavy price tag for ordinary Americans.Of course, the usual partisan lines are already being drawn. Environmentalists, never ones to sit quietly, have decried the move as shortsighted at best, reckless at worst. Peter Zalzal with the Environmental Defense Fund warned that scrapping the rule paves the way for dirtier air—potentially higher rates of asthma, respiratory problems, and thousands of avoidable early deaths. He’s not speaking in broad hypotheticals, either; advocates point to a “mountain of scientific evidence,” as Zalzal put it, noting the severe climate events that have battered communities from coast to coast in recent years.There’s a legal thicket awaiting any final rollback. The Supreme Court, in a landmark 2007 case, confirmed that greenhouse gases are covered by the Clean Air Act. Since then, multiple courts have sided with the federal government’s right—even its obligation—to act on the issue. Attacks on the endangerment finding will almost certainly spark immediate lawsuits, with environmental groups ready to take the fight to courtrooms nationwide.As for the scientific basis for the finding, it’s only gotten firmer with time. Just last year, a blue-ribbon panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that the 2009 policy was not only sound but reinforced by a decade’s worth of new evidence. Their verdict? The harm from human-caused greenhouse gases is, in their words, “beyond scientific dispute.”Brigit Hirsch, speaking for the EPA, played up the need to reconsider what she called “one of the most damaging [regulatory] decisions in modern history.” She insisted the agency is committed to “delivering a historic action for the American people,” though specifics remain under wraps.If there’s anything certain here, it’s the storm of debate now gathering on Capitol Hill and across the country. For some, this is a chance to revitalize American industry and trim red tape. For others, it’s a troubling sidestep on the road to combating the planet’s most pressing crisis. However the issue unfolds, it’s destined to shape U.S. environmental policy and legal precedent for years to come.