Trump's EPA moving to end federal regulation of greenhouse gases
Administor Lee Zeldin just proposed one of the biggest deregulatory moves in U.S. history.
In one of the most sweeping deregulatory actions in U.S. history, the Trump administration is set to end the federal government’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases.
On Tuesday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to repeal the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” revoking the agency’s power to regulate six greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This would also end the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate).
“If finalized, today’s announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,” Zeldin said.
He claims the repeal could save $54 billion annually in regulatory costs and eliminate what he called “$1 trillion or more in hidden taxes” on families and businesses.
“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. “They 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, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
End of Chevron deference shifts legal ground
The EPA never received explicit congressional approval to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency asserted this authority in 2009, following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases could be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Last year the Supreme Court overturned “Chevron deference,” a 40-year legal precedent that allowed federal agencies wide latitude to interpret ambiguous laws. This decision reaffirmed that only Congress—not unelected bureaucrats—can create new legal obligations.
Zeldin argues that in light of Chevron’s demise, the EPA must relinquish its self-appointed authority. The proposed repeal now enters a 45-day public comment period and could be finalized in 2026.
EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” shaped U.S. climate policy
In its 2009 “endangerment finding,” the EPA gave itself power to regulate greenhouse gases on the grounds that they endanger public health by contributing to climate change.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 tasked the federal government with regulating six major pollutants known to harm human health and the environment: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, could be considered endangerments under the Clean Air Act, and instructed the EPA to determine whether they endanger public health, which led to the EPA’s finding. This interpretation has had a profound impact on American life and industry, shaping federal climate policy for over 15 years.
“Big brother climate regulations from the government don’t do anything meaningful for global greenhouse gas emissions,” said Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright on The Ben Shapiro Show. “They don’t change any health outcomes for Americans, but they massively grow the government. They increase costs and they grow the reach of the government. So Administrator Lee Zeldin is re-reviewing that and saying, Hey, we don’t believe that greenhouse gases are a significant endangerment to the American public and they shouldn’t be regulated by the EPA.”
How could this decision impact American industry?
The rollback could reshape nearly every sector of the U.S. economy, from agriculture and transportation to manufacturing and energy, while also blocking future administrations from reinstating broad climate rules.
The announcement follows a Trump executive order to submit a report on the legality and usefulness of the endangerment finding.
Agriculture and land use
Large farms, ranches, feedlots, and other livestock operations would no longer face potential methane or CO2 reporting requirements.
Reporting requirements and compliance expenses would drop for ag businesses.
Ethanol and other biofuel production could decline as federal emissions credits are phased out.
Automotive industry
Federal tailpipe emissions limits and fuel economy standards would end.
Carmakers may shift investments from EVs back to gasoline and diesel.
States like California could maintain stricter vehicle emissions standards, creating regulatory confusion.
Manufacturing
U.S. manufacturing could be more competitive on the global market.
Industries like steel, fertilizer, cement, and chemical production would no longer face emissions caps, permitting delays, retrofitting mandates, or tracking requirements.
Project planning could speed up without carbon-related Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) reviews.
Energy sector
Fossil fuel producers would face fewer regulations, permitting delays, and compliance burdens.
Renewables such as wind and solar may lose the advantages of federal regulations and subsidies.
Power plants would no longer be held to federal emissions targets.
Infrastructure and building
Major projects like highways and power lines would be exempt from carbon impact analyses, simplifying permitting.
Large developments may avoid environmental mitigation requirements for greenhouse gases.
Transportation and shipping
Trucking fleets could skip expensive upgrades tied to diesel emissions and fuel standards rules.
Airlines would no longer be pressured to curb carbon emissions.
Supply chains may benefit from lower transportation compliance costs.
Legal and political backlash expected
Environmental NGOs such as the Sierra Club and Earthjustice have already announced plans to sue. States like Massachusetts and New York may file lawsuits, citing the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases can qualify as pollutants.
“As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat,’' said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “It boggles the mind and endangers the nation’s safety and welfare.”
The DOE released a report challenging mainstream climate science. Among its findings: storms and other extreme weather events are not increasing due to climate change.
“We’ve just driven up the price of energy, reduced choice to American consumers, without meaningfully moving global greenhouse gas emissions at all,” he said. “And when I talk to activists or politicians about it, they’re not even that concerned about it. They don’t act as if their real goal is to incrementally reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Their real goal is for the government and them, you know, a small number of people, to decide what’s appropriate behavior for all Americans. Just creepy, top-down control, sold in the name of protecting the future of the planet.”
He added that natural gas, not federal regulation, was the biggest driver of U.S. emissions reductions—accounting for roughly 60% of all carbon cuts—by displacing coal in power generation.
This is great, but here in California, we're still fecked by the California Air Resources Board, that limits emissions from pretty much everything.
This has been a long time coming! It will be interesting to see how it plays out, if it can actually be rescinded! Unfortunately the bleeding hearts and goody 2 shoes will yell themselves hoarse over this. I am an environmentalist and have been for decades but the costs/regulations imposed on all types of industries and businesses have been detrimental to all concerned.