On February 12th, the Trump administration undertook its most consequential move yet: repealing the controversial and unscientific 2009 endangerment finding that labeled carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant.
In its formal announcement rescinding the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said this is the largest deregulatory action ever taken by an administration. It’ll reportedly save taxpayers $1.3 trillion.
“Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement.
Naturally, climate alarmists – including panicans - fumed at the news. Ambulance chasers Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, who oppose clean energy sources like nuclear energy, howled and whined about the news. Al Gore, on cue, peddled the climate crisis narrative. Former President Barack Obama - whose administration crafted this administrative (not scientific) rule - said, “Without it, we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.”
Let’s clear the air about the endangerment finding.
CO2 isn’t Regulated Under the Clean Air Act
The Obama administration drew inspiration for the 2009 endangerment finding from the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling that said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases (GHG), including CO2, as a pollutant harmful to human health.
The 2009 rule was used as a basis to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in gas-powered vehicles to mandate electric vehicles and discourage their use. This regulation has also been applied to power plants and other industries, as well, to force our economy into a 100 percent net-zero transition by 2050.
But succeeding rulings - West Virginia vs. EPA and Loper Bright - challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions and said that power rests solely with Congress — not the bureaucracy.
Despite the 2007 ruling, Congress never codified it into law and hasn’t regulated carbon dioxide- or 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere - as a criteria pollutant. Currently, under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, only these six pollutants are listed: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Endangerment finding defenders believe the 2009 rule was scientific. But it was actually administrative. Meteorologist Ryan Maue, who served in the first Trump administration at
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), explained on X/Twitter: “The 'endangerment finding' was an administrative decision not a scientific assessment. The EPA's 'technical support document' was a compilation of previous science reports curated by federal employees in 'support' of the EF, and not an independent scientific assessment. No such scientific assessment process was ever undertaken by the EPA.”
Emissions Were Slated to Go Down Without Climate Policies
Defenders of the endangerment finding argue that punitive regulations will change behaviors and lead to emissions reductions.
The evidence, however, shows this is not true. In fact, the opposite occurs: when market forces — not government picking winners and losers — are at play, positive environmental outcomes will result.
CO2 emissions peaked in 2005 and have been on a downward trajectory ever since. Why? The shale (fracking) boom - not overregulation or the endangerment finding. Fracking, for example, is responsible for at least 60 percent of emissions reductions over the last 20 years.
When the One Big Beautiful Bill repealed much of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) green subsidies, the same panicans claimed Congress is endangering the country by daring to remove subsidies for costly part-time solar and wind energy projects. The Cato Institute pointed out that without the IRA and, by extension, the endangerment finding, the U.S. was already on track to make significant emissions reductions due to market innovation, not overregulation.
Talk about an inconvenient truth!
Overregulation Doesn’t Guarantee a Clean Environment
Legacy environmentalists and their alarmist pals decry any semblance of deregulation. They argue that deregulation will lead to the decimation of the environment. In the past, this narrative went unchallenged. But over the last decade, reality sank in.
Americans are increasingly hesitant to pay more than $1 a month to fight climate change. Climate change isn’t a top polling issue. And a 2015 study found that governments, not private companies, are more likely to violate and ignore environmental regulations: “Our empirical subjects are public and private entities’ compliance with the U.S. Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. We find that, compared with private firms, governments violate these laws significantly more frequently and are less likely to be penalized for violations.”
That’s why more Americans believe you can deregulate while maintaining clean air, water, and land conditions. A June 2025 Pew Research survey found that 54 percent of Americans agree with this sentiment.
What’s Next?
The Trump administration should absolutely celebrate this landmark action. But the celebration will be short-lived if the rescission isn’t permanently codified. In the short term, Congress must pass a bill to codify the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding and make sure it extends beyond gas-powered cars. It must also encompass power plants and other targets of climate panicans. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) teased that he is exploring such a bill.
Long-term, a legal challenge to the 2007 Massachusetts vs EPA ruling to invalidate it also should occur, to prevent this back-and-forth between presidential administrations. As with other SCOTUS decisions pertaining to GHG emissions, the Supreme Court should affirm that Congress - not federal agencies - can only make rules pertaining to GHG emissions.
I proudly lent my support to the endangerment finding repeal. Why? Deregulation won’t lead to environmental degradation.
Dear climate panicans: you need to chill out. All will be fine.
