What to Know About the E.P.A.’s Big Attack on Climate Regulation

The Repeal of the Endangerment Finding

On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency revoked the scientific finding that has been the basis for regulating emissions from cars and power plants since 2009. That finding, called the endangerment finding, reflects the consensus of scientists that greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas endanger the health and general welfare of the American people.

The Trump administration wants to repeal the finding because President Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" and has argued that the United States should produce and burn more fossil fuels, and the E.P.A. administrator, Lee Zeldin, has claimed that reversing the endangerment finding will aid the U.S. economy by relieving the coal, oil, and gas industries of pollution limits that cost them money.

The repeal of the endangerment finding could prevent future presidents from reinstating any climate rules in the future, as it dismantles the justification for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and the E.P.A. is already erasing dozens of Biden-era regulations that sought to limit pollution from automobile tailpipes, power plant smokestacks, oil and gas wells, and other sources.

Last year, Josh Dawsey and Maxine Joselow of the Washington Post reported that at a campaign event at Mar-a-Lago in April 2024, then-candidate Trump told oil executives they should raise $1 billion for his campaign. In exchange, Trump promised he would get rid of Biden-era regulations and make sure no more of them went into effect, in addition to lowering taxes. Trump told them $1 billion would be a “deal,” considering how much money they would make if he were in the White House. The theater of this transition was made clear on the eve of the announcement, as President Trump was presented with a trophy naming him the “undisputed champion of beautiful, clean coal” while signing orders to subsidize the industry.

Scientists are unequivocal in their opinion that the dangers of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions were clear in 2009 and have only grown more evident since, and they argue that the repeal of the endangerment finding is not supported by scientific evidence and will have severe consequences for the environment and human health.

However, the current administration's "optimism" continues to defy physical reality. Even with current progress, the planet remains on track for an average increase of 2.6°C (4.7°F) by the century’s end—a threshold that would trigger the loss of nearly all coral reefs and catastrophic sea-level rise. The scientific consensus has not softened; it has crystallized. As Robert Howarth, a professor at Cornell University, noted:

"The basic science on greenhouse gases from fossil fuels as a driver of climate change has been clear for well over a century... the science has gotten even stronger, particularly regarding attributing harm to the changing climate."

Drawing on recent judicial trends, the EPA argues it cannot regulate matters with "far-reaching economic consequences"—such as the transition to electric vehicles—without "explicit congressional authorization."

This framework stands in direct opposition to the 2007 Supreme Court precedent Massachusetts v. EPA. In that landmark ruling, the Court held that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has the authority to regulate them if it determines they threaten public health and welfare.

In response, environmental and health organizations, including Earthjustice, the American Lung Association, and the American Public Health Association, have vowed to challenge the repeal in court. They argue the decision is irreconcilable with current law and the escalating reality of climate-driven disasters.