Trump revokes landmark ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health

Subtitle: The rollback of the Obama-era “endangerment finding” signals a dramatic shift in U.S. climate policy and sets the stage for legal and political battles over the nation’s responsibility to curb emissions.In a move that reshapes the foundation of U.S. climate regulation, Donald Trump has formally revoked the landmark federal ruling that classified greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. The decision overturns the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Administration officials described the action as a correction of what they called regulatory overreach. They argued the original finding relied on “uncertain climate projections” and imposed unnecessary costs on U.S. industries and consumers. The new directive instructs the EPA to withdraw the scientific and legal basis for treating greenhouse gases as pollutants that threaten human health.
“This is about restoring balance and protecting American jobs,” a senior official said during the announcement. “We are ensuring that environmental policy does not become a weapon against economic growth.”
The endangerment finding, introduced during the Obama administration, was a cornerstone of federal climate policy. It provided the legal justification for limits on emissions from power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. By rescinding it, the Trump administration effectively removes the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases nationwide unless Congress passes new legislation.
Environmental groups and public health advocates reacted with alarm. They warned that the decision ignores decades of scientific research linking climate change to rising heat deaths, worsening air quality, stronger storms, and the spread of infectious diseases. Several organizations vowed to challenge the move in court, arguing that the EPA is legally obligated to consider scientific evidence and protect public welfare.
“This is not just a policy change—it is a rejection of established science,” said one environmental lawyer involved in preparing litigation. “The courts have already affirmed that greenhouse gases can be regulated when they endanger health. Undoing that will not be easy.”
Legal experts expect a protracted battle. The original endangerment finding was upheld by federal courts, and any attempt to withdraw it must survive judicial review. Critics say the administration must provide stronger scientific justification than it has so far presented, or risk having the reversal blocked.
Industry groups, however, welcomed the announcement. Energy producers and manufacturing associations have long complained that climate regulations increase operating costs and put U.S. companies at a disadvantage compared with foreign competitors. They argue that market forces and innovation, rather than federal mandates, should drive emissions reductions.
Internationally, the decision has drawn sharp criticism from U.S. allies and climate diplomats. Observers say it weakens American credibility in global climate negotiations and could slow momentum toward collective action. Several European officials expressed concern that the U.S. is retreating from commitments to address a problem that scientists describe as accelerating.
Public reaction at home has been divided. Supporters of the move see it as consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle what he called burdensome environmental rules. Opponents view it as a step backward that puts vulnerable communities at greater risk from pollution and extreme weather.
The rollback comes amid increasing evidence of climate impacts across the United States, including record-breaking heat waves, more intense wildfires, and rising coastal flooding. Health organizations warn that these trends disproportionately affect the elderly, children, and low-income populations.
Whether the revocation ultimately stands will depend on the courts and future administrations. For now, the decision marks one of the most consequential reversals of environmental policy in modern U.S. history—one that reopens a fundamental question: should greenhouse gases be treated as a public health threat, or as an economic variable beyond the reach of federal regulation?