The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cancelled its greenhouse gas ‘endangerment finding’, a legal determination that gave the agency the authority to regulate planet-heating gases under the nation’s Clean Air Act. The move could have far-reaching implications covering a range of pollution control measures, but is likely to face legal challenges.
On 12 February, the EPA announced that it has rescinded the endangerment finding, a 2009 ruling that formally recognised that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health. The finding served as the basis for US limits on vehicle exhaust emissions and power plant regulations.
The EPA described the elimination of the endangerment finding as ‘the single largest deregulatory action in US history’, claiming that the finding was used to ‘justify trillions of dollars in regulations’. According to the EPA, reversing the finding will save over $1.3 trillion (£950 billion) of taxpayer’s money by removing the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal greenhouse-gas emission standards. It is the latest in a series of deregulatory measures taken by the agency under its current head Lee Zeldin, who was installed by the Trump administration in January last year.
The removal of the endangerment finding brought immediate criticism from environmental groups, political opponents of the Trump administration, and also from former EPA insiders.
No one has the authority to just pretend that the science is not there
Paul Anastas, former EPA science adviser
‘The endangerment finding is one of the most rigorously pursued scientific analyses on climate change and its impact on humans ever constructed,’ says Paul Anastas, an expert on sustainable chemistry, who headed the EPA’s Office of Research and Development from 2009 to 2012 and has also served as the agency’s science adviser. ‘It took years to construct and build upon, and with each passing year, more and more scientific evidence was added to strengthen that endangerment finding.’
Anastas predicts that the EPA’s action won’t stand up to anticipated forthcoming legal challenges. ‘I believe it will be challenged and … no one has the authority to just pretend that the science is not there,’ he says. Anastas suggests that environmental groups, as well as cities or towns that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, could be among the plaintiffs who might sue the EPA on this matter.
In September 2025, the US National Academies published a report that concluded the EPA’s endangerment finding is ‘accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence’. The report notes that the evidence for negative health impacts caused by the build up of greenhouse gases is ‘beyond scientific dispute’.
No comments yet