Trump's New Plan to Dismantle Key Climate Regulations: Ignoring the Science

Trump Administration Targets Climate Regulations

The Trump administration is preparing to challenge the legal foundation of federal climate regulations, arguing that current laws do not require agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This move aims to weaken or eliminate many U.S. restrictions on climate pollution, according to multiple sources familiar with the upcoming proposal.

Central to this effort is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to undo what is known as the "endangerment finding." This 2009 decision established a comprehensive scientific basis for regulating carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases, citing their threats to public health and welfare. Instead of disputing the science, which would involve rejecting the overwhelming consensus that human activities are driving climate change through fossil fuel use, the administration is focusing on a legal argument.

According to three anonymous sources, the administration will rely on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that allowed but did not mandate the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This approach avoids directly challenging the scientific evidence while seeking to dismantle the regulatory framework that has been in place for over a decade.

If successful, this effort would mark one of the most significant steps by President Donald Trump to roll back climate policies and advance his “energy dominance” agenda, which emphasizes expanding fossil fuel production. The plan is part of a broader strategy that includes efforts to eliminate vehicle tailpipe pollution rules and power plant emissions limits. These moves could significantly undermine the U.S. commitment to addressing global temperature rise.

The United States has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, responsible for more than 1.3 degrees Celsius of the warming seen since the Industrial Revolution. Currently, it is the second-largest polluter, behind China.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been vocal about his opposition to what he calls “the holy grail of the climate change religion.” However, he is not alone in drafting this proposal. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has played a central role, according to Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s first EPA transition team. The Justice Department has also been involved, shaping the draft rule based on legal rather than scientific reasoning.

This legal strategy comes amid growing international pressure. The United Nations International Court of Justice recently ruled that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat,” urging countries to cooperate to keep temperature rises below 1.5 degrees. The court also stated that exiting the 2015 Paris climate agreement does not exempt nations from their obligations to reduce emissions.

Despite these challenges, Trump officials appear prepared to take the issue to court. By framing the case as a legal matter rather than a scientific one, the administration is shifting away from the strategy used during the first term under then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, which focused on challenging the Obama-era scientific analysis of greenhouse gases.

An EPA spokesperson confirmed that the agency submitted its reconsideration to OMB on June 30 and that the proposal will be published for public comment once it completes interagency review and is signed by the Administrator.

The legal basis for U.S. climate rules stems from the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which gave the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The court ruled that the agency could avoid regulation only if it proved greenhouse gases did not contribute to climate change or provided a “reasonable explanation” for not issuing an endangerment finding.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in that case, arguing that the potential damage from rising temperatures was “pure conjecture.” With the Supreme Court now having a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, the administration is eager to test the boundaries of this legal framework.

High-ranking Trump officials have been actively involved in shaping this strategy. OMB Director Russ Vought has led efforts to limit the influence of climate science on policy decisions. He previously argued that federal climate science constrained agency actions. Jeffrey Clark, who led the Justice Department’s environmental division during Trump’s first term, has been instrumental in advancing the endangerment finding proposal.

Environmental groups have strongly criticized the proposed changes. Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity called the move a “giant gift to oil companies” that would harm people, wildlife, and future generations. The administration’s focus on deregulation appears to prioritize fossil fuel interests over scientific evidence and public health.