Trump's Shocking Move: Are You Ready for a 50% Cut in Climate Protections? Find Out Now!

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a significant move that could reshape the U.S. approach to climate change, the Trump administration is poised to revoke a key scientific finding that has long supported federal action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This announcement, expected this week from the White House, will mark the end of the endangerment finding, a critical declaration made during the Obama administration in 2009. This policy established that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

A White House official, speaking under the condition of anonymity, confirmed the impending decision, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that President Trump’s actions will represent "the most significant deregulatory actions in history" aimed at promoting American energy dominance and lowering costs.

The endangerment finding has served as the legal foundation for numerous climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. These regulations have been pivotal in establishing standards for vehicle emissions, power plants, and various pollution sources contributing to global warming. They have aimed to address the increasing severity of climate-related threats such as catastrophic wildfires, extreme heat waves, and deadly floods.

The decision to revoke this finding is likely to ignite legal battles, with environmental groups arguing that it represents the most significant attempt to dismantle federal efforts to combat climate change in U.S. history. An EPA spokesperson did not provide a timeline for the revocation but reiterated that the agency is finalizing a new rule concerning the endangerment finding.

Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson, criticized the Obama-era rule as "one of the most damaging decisions in modern history," claiming that the agency is "actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people."

President Trump has previously labeled climate change a "hoax" and has directed the EPA to review the legality and applicability of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some Republican lawmakers have long viewed these regulations as economically damaging and overly restrictive.

Former Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin, who now leads the EPA, has criticized his Democratic predecessors, suggesting they were "willing to bankrupt the country" in their climate change efforts. He claimed that the endangerment finding allowed for extensive regulations that could stifle various sectors of the economy and drive up costs for American consumers.

Opponents of the proposed repeal, including Peter Zalzal, a lawyer and associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, warn that this move could lead to increased climate pollution, escalating health care and fuel costs, and potentially thousands of preventable deaths. Zalzal remarked, "Zeldin's push is cynical and deeply damaging, given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the finding and the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now."

Critics highlight that a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA established that greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Subsequent court rulings have upheld the endangerment finding, including a recent 2023 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In light of the ongoing debate, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reassessed the scientific basis for the 2009 finding and concluded that it remains accurate and has been reinforced by stronger evidence. The panel of scientists stated, "The evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute."

This impending policy change highlights the ongoing battle over climate regulations in the U.S., revealing a deep divide between those who advocate for strict measures to combat climate change and those who prioritize economic growth over environmental protections. The ramifications of this decision will likely reverberate through both political and environmental spheres, as the country grapples with the pressing challenges posed by climate change.