EPA Moves to Repeal Core Climate Authority

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to take an unprecedented step: dismantling its own authority to regulate the very pollutants it was created to control. For 55 years, the agency has served as America's primary environmental watchdog, its regulatory approach shifting like a pendulum between administrations. Under Democratic presidents, it typically tightened controls on industrial and automotive emissions. Under Republicans, it often granted industry more flexibility.

When President Donald Trump returned to office, experts anticipated a familiar tilt toward deregulation. Instead, the administration is pursuing something far more fundamental. The EPA is now moving to repeal its foundational endangerment finding—the 2009 rule that established its legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases—and simultaneously eliminating its own power to limit carbon pollution from automobiles.

The centerpiece of this regulatory retreat is the proposed repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, a landmark Obama-era rule that declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare. This finding provided the legal foundation for all subsequent climate regulations, from power plant emissions to vehicle tailpipes. The agency's final proposal would not only eliminate this authority but also revoke parallel rules limiting carbon pollution from gasoline-powered cars.

The administration's legal argument rests on two main pillars. First, the EPA contends it lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate carbon dioxide because global warming represents a worldwide issue rather than a "local and regional" problem like soot. Second, the agency claims strict tailpipe regulations effectively ban internal combustion engines by forcing manufacturers to adopt expensive electric vehicle technology.

"The ability to own a vehicle is an important means to unlock economic freedom and participate in society."

These arguments mark a stark departure from decades of legal precedent. The Clean Air Act explicitly authorizes EPA intervention when air pollutants "endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country," and the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision affirmed this authority as "unambiguous." Even the current conservative court has upheld this interpretation while limiting other aspects of agency power.

Administrator Lee Zeldin is personally promoting these changes through a "Freedom Means Affordable Cars" tour through Michigan and Ohio, two states central to American automotive manufacturing. The tour frames deregulation as a consumer benefit, arguing that eliminating emissions standards will keep vehicles affordable and accessible.

The public comment period revealed overwhelming opposition to the proposed changes. Thousands of environmental organizations and individuals submitted objections, but notably, even major polluters urged reconsideration. The Business Roundtable, representing corporations including General Motors, 3M, and Chevron, warned that eliminating federal regulations would create a patchwork of conflicting state laws, driving up compliance costs and creating regulatory uncertainty.

• Environmental groups: Nearly universal opposition to repealing climate protections
• Major corporations: Warned of chaotic business environment without federal standards
• Industry leaders: Concerned about conflicting state regulations increasing costs
• Legal experts: Questioned the administration's interpretation of Clean Air Act authority

"Attempting to comply with multiple, likely conflicting, regulations among the states will drive up compliance costs for companies, create obstacles for investment decisions, lead to regulatory uncertainty, and make efficient reduction of emissions more difficult."

Former EPA officials and climate experts have uniformly dismissed the administration's legal and economic arguments. Margo Oge, who led the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality from 1994 to 2012, characterized industry warnings about regulatory burden as predictable but unfounded.

"We have heard time after time from companies that the sky is falling when they face stringent standards. But that hasn't happened."

Bob Perciasepe, who served as assistant administrator for air and water quality under President Bill Clinton, warned that these changes represent more than routine deregulation. "Any erosion of the purpose of these laws, which was to protect public health, is undermining the very purpose of environmental protection," he stated.

Experts argue that eliminating federal oversight would leave the United States falling behind as the rest of the world moves toward electric vehicles. Without clear federal standards, domestic manufacturers risk investing in outdated, high-polluting technologies while international competitors advance cleaner alternatives.

If courts uphold the administration's changes, the consequences could reshape American climate policy for years. A ruling that the EPA lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gases would require a future president to either formulate a new endangerment finding—a process that could take years—or secure explicit congressional approval for such regulations.

The practical impact would be immediate and significant. Without federal standards, automotive carbon emissions—which account for one quarter of America's contribution to global warming—would face no federal limits. States could attempt to regulate greenhouse gases through common law, but this would create a fragmented regulatory landscape that industry groups warn would be inefficient and costly.

The changes extend beyond climate policy. The EPA has already confirmed it will no longer quantify the human health benefits of regulating industrial pollution, a shift that could justify far more lenient oversight of toxic emissions from smokestacks and power plants. This represents the latest in a series of repeals covering everything from mercury to microplastics.

The proposed changes now face their ultimate test in the courts, where they will likely be challenged by states, environmental organizations, and even some industry groups seeking regulatory certainty. The Supreme Court's previous rulings on EPA authority suggest the administration faces an uphill battle, though the current court's composition remains uncertain.

For now, the EPA's proposed repeals represent the most significant attempt to shrink the agency's authority since its founding. Whether this represents a temporary shift in regulatory philosophy or a permanent diminishment of federal environmental protection will ultimately be decided by judges—and potentially by future administrations seeking to reverse these changes.

The outcome will determine not just how America regulates pollution, but whether the federal government maintains its role as the primary guardian of air quality and climate protection for decades to come.