![\"Trees](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/trump-epa-endangerment-finding-25.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\t<\/p>\n
The 97,000-acre Windy Fire blazes through a grove of giant sequoias in Sequoia National Park, Tulare County, Calif., September 2021.David McNew\/Getty<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tGet your news from a source that\u2019s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.<\/a><\/p>\n Donald Trump is coming for the \u201choly grail<\/a>\u201d of climate regulations. As multiple<\/a> media<\/a> outlets<\/a> reported this week, the administration plans to roll back the \u201cendangerment finding<\/a>,\u201d an Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency decision at the center of the government\u2019s ability to address climate change.<\/p>\n On paper, the endangerment finding states that greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide pose a risk to the public\u2019s health and well-being. That may sound obvious enough. But in practice, it\u2019s one of the agency\u2019s most important decisions.<\/p>\n That\u2019s thanks to the landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/a>, which found that the agency not only has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, but the obligation to do so, if it determines the pollutants pose a health hazard. In 2009, backed by an overwhelming body of science<\/a>, the endangerment finding did just that.<\/p>\n Now, the Trump administration reportedly<\/a> plans to throw out the finding, stripping the EPA of its central role in regulating emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power plants, and more. If the administration succeeds in court (a big if), experts say it would put the United States\u2019\u2014and the world\u2019s\u2014ability to fight climate change at risk.<\/p>\n To understand what rescinding the endangerment finding might mean, I called up Pat Parenteau, an emeritus law professor and senior fellow for climate policy in the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, and James Milkey, a retired Massachusetts Appeals Court justice and former environmental attorney who argued Massachusetts v. EPA before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Here are a few takeaways from our conversations.<\/p>\n The evidence that greenhouse gases are bad for health is irrefutable.<\/p>\n More than two decades ago, Milkey and his team at the Massachusetts Attorney General\u2019s office sued the Bush administration over its inaction on climate change in Massachusetts v. EPA. At the time, he recalls, they faced all sorts of challenges, but \u201cmarshaling the underlying science was not one of them.\u201d<\/p>\n The science was clear. \u201cScientists are the most skeptical people on Earth,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd there was a scientific consensus that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere posed dire threats.\u201d<\/p>\n Since then, those threats have only worsened. As the most recent report<\/a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed in 2023, concluded, \u201cHuman-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people.\u201d<\/p>\n The Trump administration, in a sense, appears to recognize this. While it hasn\u2019t released the details of its proposal publicly, reports from the New York Times<\/a>, Washington Post<\/a>, and other outlets indicate that Trump officials aren\u2019t planning to repeal the endangerment finding on scientific grounds, but procedural ones, and will reportedly<\/a> argue<\/a> that the Obama administration overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n Rescinding the \u201cendangerment finding\u201d won\u2019t be easy.<\/p>\n On June 30, the Trump EPA sent its proposal\u2014\u201dReconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards\u201d\u2014to the Office of Management and Budget, an EPA spokesperson told Mother Jones in an emailed statement. The proposal will be published for public comment, the spokesperson said, \u201conce it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.\u201d<\/p>\n After it\u2019s finalized, expect \u201clawsuits galore,\u201d Parenteau says, whether from attorneys general in blue states, public health groups, or climate nonprofits. <\/p>\n \u201cGod help us,\u201d Parenteau says, \u201cbecause there are not five votes to uphold.\u201d<\/p>\n From there, it could take years\u2014possibly the rest of the Trump administration\u2019s term in office, according to Parenteau\u2014for the courts to sort out the lawsuits. Ultimately, the question is likely to go to the Supreme Court. If the court also decides to reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA, the foundation for the endangerment finding, \u201cGod help us,\u201d says Parenteau, \u201cbecause there are not five votes to uphold [the ruling].\u201d<\/p>\n And in the meantime, if EPA rolls back other rules based on the endangerment finding\u2014like the Biden administration\u2019s efforts to curb tailpipe emissions and encourage the transition to electric vehicles<\/a>\u2014the administration is likely to face even more lawsuits, Parenteau says: \u201cLitigation, litigation, litigation, all the time, everywhere, all at once.\u201d<\/p>\n It could also backfire.<\/p>\n As Parenteau wrote in the Conversation<\/a> in March, throwing out the endangerment finding might not be all good news for Big Oil.<\/p>\n Across the country, Parenteau explains, cities and states have sued fossil fuel companies in dozens of lawsuits over damage caused by climate change. In response, the companies have argued that the federal Clean Air Act supersedes the state lawsuits. But if Trump\u2019s repeal of the endangerment finding succeeds, Parenteau says, and greenhouse gas emissions aren\u2019t regulated under the Act, that could \u201cundercut\u201d the companies\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ve got to be careful what you ask for in law,\u201d he says, \u201cbecause you never can be sure what the unintended consequences are going to be.\u201d<\/p>\n Win or lose, Trump has signaled no intention to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. <\/p>\n When I asked Milkey how a challenge to the endangerment finding might play out in court, he didn\u2019t think Team Trump would have much of a chance, at least on the scientific front. \u201cBut the scary part is,\u201d Milkey says, \u201cfrom their perspective, I don\u2019t think it matters.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe damage is being done regardless of who wins the ultimate legal fight.\u201d<\/p>\n As the legal conflict rolls on, the administration may go years, potentially, without implementing any sort of climate regulation (or enforcing existing ones). \u201cIt\u2019s parallel to the Trump administration illegally pulling research grants from universities<\/a>\u2014the damage is being done,\u201d Milkey says, \u201cregardless of who wins the ultimate legal fight.\u201d<\/p>\n That would set the country back on climate action at a time when we can\u2019t afford to delay. The United States is the second-leading emitter<\/a> of greenhouse gases, after China, in the world. If we abandon any effort to reduce emissions, Parenteau warns, the world won\u2019t come close to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement\u2014limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius<\/a> above pre-industrial levels, let alone a less damaging 1.5 degrees. \u201cThat\u2019s the cascading effect of this,\u201d Parenteau says, \u201cwe cripple the world\u2019s ability to create anything approaching a livable planet.\u201d<\/p>\n