Trump's Shocking Move: Are We on the Brink of Catastrophe as Climate Regulations Crumble?

The Trump administration is set to roll back a significant legal ruling that classifies climate change as a threat to public health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce its final rule to dismantle the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, which has served as the legal backbone for major U.S. climate regulations. As this unfolds, the implications for industry, environmental policy, and the health of everyday Americans remain uncertain and complex.

This move is the culmination of a long-term campaign by President Donald Trump and his allies to dismantle existing climate regulations. The endangerment finding was previously labeled as “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history” by an EPA spokesperson in communications with Vox. This ruling, initially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, mandates that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they pose a harm to public health. In 2009, the EPA under President Barack Obama concluded that these gases endanger lives, a determination that has faced numerous challenges but has been upheld in federal courts.

Repealing the endangerment finding has been a key goal for the Trump administration, as indicated in Project 2025. If successfully repealed, it would raise serious questions about the future of U.S. climate policy and could lead to a cascade of lawsuits with unpredictable outcomes. Should the endangerment finding remain intact, the Trump administration would be compelled to establish new climate regulations. Conversely, if the ruling is dismantled, it could pave the way for further rollbacks of emissions standards, complicating the regulatory landscape for industries and exposing Americans to higher levels of pollution.

Here are three potential scenarios regarding the fate of the endangerment finding:

The Possible Outcomes

Outcome 1: The endangerment finding repeal is blocked. Environmental advocates assert that the rationale behind the repeal lacks scientific and legal credibility. As stated by Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, “This is flat-Earth science.” The connection between climate change and public health has only strengthened since the endangerment finding was first established, and many experts argue that the EPA has a legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gases to protect American health.

Outcome 2: The endangerment finding repeal stands. If the courts side with the Trump administration, the government will cease regulating greenhouse gases. However, this doesn’t mean major polluters will be free from consequences. The absence of federal regulations could expose them to a wave of legal actions from communities affected by pollution, as pointed out by Andres Restrepo, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club. “I think that will eliminate that liability shield for major companies,” he said, suggesting that this could increase litigation risks for industries like fossil fuels and power generation.

Outcome 3: The regulatory back-and-forth continues. With the next presidential election just two years away, a Democratic administration could swiftly undo any changes made by Trump. The lack of a comprehensive legislative framework directly regulating greenhouse gas emissions has led to this ongoing cycle of regulatory uncertainty, where every administration's policies swing dramatically from one extreme to the other. According to Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, “This long-running, tedious ping-pong match is robbing Americans of meaningful action against a genuine threat to their health.”

Despite some reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the past two decades, largely driven by market trends in coal and efficiency improvements, the absence of consistent regulations means that progress is likely to be stunted. Health impacts from emissions, as highlighted during Trump's first term, indicate a potential rise in premature deaths and asthma attacks resulting from weakened regulations.

The EPA's justification for repealing the endangerment finding revolves around claims that stricter pollution standards could increase prices for consumers. However, by improving vehicle fuel efficiency, tougher emissions limits could ultimately lower costs for drivers, particularly as gasoline remains a significant household expense.

While efforts to revive the coal industry continue, the reality is that coal-fired plants are being phased out due to economic pressures from cheaper energy sources like natural gas and renewables. Business stability is crucial for industries like automotive manufacturing and power generation, both of which require long-term regulatory clarity to make substantial investments. The uncertainty created by constant policy shifts not only complicates their planning but also risks raising energy bills for the public.

Ultimately, durable action on climate change will likely require dedicated legislation, yet Congress has been unable to pass any such measures. Until that changes, advocates will have to navigate a landscape defined by regulatory instability and political maneuvering, all while pressing for the meaningful action that Americans need to counter the escalating climate crisis.