 "Trump plans to rescind scientific finding that allows US fund fight against climate change threats: Report")
The Trump administration is preparing to eliminate the legal and scientific cornerstone of the federal government’s climate change policy. A draft Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal, not yet public, would rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” that identified greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to human health and welfare.
Legal foundation of climate policy targeted
As reported by The New York Times, two individuals familiar with the draft explained that the EPA intends to roll back the finding without directly challenging the scientific consensus that emissions from fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Instead, the administration reportedly plans to argue that the EPA exceeded its legal authority when it issued a sweeping declaration under the Clean Air Act.
The endangerment finding, developed during the Obama administration in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provided the legal basis for federal rules limiting emissions from vehicles, power plants and industrial sources. If repealed, the decision would not only nullify existing environmental protections but also prevent future administrations from reinstating similar measures without starting over legally and scientifically.
Tailpipe emission rules also in crosshairs
The draft rule also includes a proposal to revoke federal limits on vehicle emissions that were designed to speed up the transition to electric cars. The transportation sector is currently the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The EPA is expected to argue that such regulations, based on the endangerment finding, cause harm to consumers by limiting vehicle choice and increasing prices rather than improving public health.
Reports described the EPA’s framing as an economic one—suggesting that federal efforts to reduce carbon emissions come at too great a financial cost. Administrator Lee Zeldin, in earlier remarks reported by The Washington Post, emphasised the need to balance environmental goals with energy security and economic freedom, framing the review of the endangerment finding as part of the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda.
Environmental and legal experts cited by both newspapers have expressed deep concern over the proposed rollback. The New York Times noted that critics see this move as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts vs EPA decision, which concluded that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Legal analysts told The Washington Post that any attempt to withdraw the endangerment finding could unravel the EPA’s authority to act on climate altogether. Some believe the rule is unlikely to survive in court but warn that even temporary setbacks could paralyse climate action.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsPolitical motives?
Behind the scenes, the proposal appears to have been shaped by former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, according to The Washington Post. Clark, who was involved in legal opposition to greenhouse gas regulations during the Bush administration, is believed to be a principal architect of the repeal. His past criticisms of the endangerment finding, especially its alleged failure to weigh economic consequences, have reportedly informed the draft rule’s legal strategy.
Instead of contesting climate science outright, the rule reportedly focusses on legal technicalities—arguing that the EPA’s authority should be limited to addressing specific pollutants in narrowly defined contexts. This approach is designed to bypass the robust scientific basis of the original finding while aiming to avoid direct confrontation with the broader consensus on climate change.
A coordinated deregulatory effort
The attempt to repeal the endangerment finding is one of many efforts by the Trump administration to reverse environmental protections. As The New York Times reported, the administration has already rolled back rules targeting emissions from fossil fuels, discouraged electric vehicle development and withdrawn the US from international climate commitments.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defence Council, speaking to The Washington Post, was one of several legal experts who characterised the move as a strategy to weaken the Clean Air Act by denying the well-documented risks of climate pollution. Others noted that this rule could become the centrepiece of the administration’s climate legacy—one that seeks to neutralise not just current regulations, but future ones as well.
While the draft rule has not yet been formally released, the EPA was submitted to the White House for review on June 30. Once published, it will undergo a period of public comment, and potentially litigation, before becoming final. The outcome of this regulatory shift could have lasting consequences not only for current efforts to reduce emissions but also for America’s long-term ability to respond to the growing climate crisis.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
