WASHINGTON —

The Trump administration on Feb. 12, 2026 formally revoked a pivotal scientific finding that has long underpinned U.S. federal action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change, marking one of the most dramatic rollbacks of environmental law in recent American history.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 “endangerment finding” — a conclusion first adopted under President Barack Obama that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That finding served as the legal and scientific foundation for nearly all U.S. climate and emissions standards, including vehicle tailpipe regulations and power plant limits.

President Trump celebrated the repeal at a White House event alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, framing the decision as "the single largest deregulatory action in American history." Trump disparaged the endangerment finding as “one of the greatest scams in history” and argued it had “no basis in fact or law,” promoting the change as a measure to boost the auto industry and reduce regulatory costs on businesses and consumers.

Zeldin echoed that the removal of the finding eliminates what he labeled regulatory overreach, stating that the original determination had led to expensive mandates on vehicle manufacturers and other sectors.

Legal and Regulatory Impact

With the endangerment finding rescinded:

• Federal greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and trucks have effectively collapsed, eliminating key federal limits on motor vehicle pollutio

• Broader climate regulations affecting power plants, industrial sources, and other stationary emitters now lack the legal foundation they once had under the Clean Air Act.

• The EPA has indicated it may delay or revise other Biden-era climate rules to align with the new regulatory framework.

Law experts and environmental advocates say the repeal could lead to extensive legal challenges, including lawsuits from states and environmental organizations, who argue the administration has ignored both established science and decades of court precedent upholding the endangerment finding — including the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that first recognized greenhouse gases as pollutants under federal law.

Political Reaction

Supporters of the rollback — primarily conservative lawmakers and industry groups — argue the move is a long-sought reduction of regulatory burdens that had restricted economic growth and innovation, particularly in the automotive and energy sectors. They frame the action as restoring regulatory balance and promoting consumer choice.

In contrast, critics across the scientific community, Democrats, and environmental organizations condemned the decision as reckless and dangerous. They emphasize the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to severe weather, rising sea levels, and public health harms, from heat-related illnesses to respiratory disease. Many climate advocates warn the repeal will increase pollution, worsen climate impacts and put vulnerable communities at greater risk.

Former EPA officials and climate leaders have also signaled plans for immediate legal action, stating that environmental laws and statutory obligations still require the EPA to address harmful emissions regardless of the administration’s political stance.

Scientific and Health Considerations

Independent peer-reviewed research over decades has linked carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to negative health effects including:

• Increased heat-related deaths during extreme temperature events

• Elevated rates of asthma and cardiovascular illness due to worsened air quality

• Greater incidence of vector-borne and waterborne diseases as climate patterns shift

Critics say repealing the endangerment finding undermines these established scientific connections and threatens future efforts to mitigate climate risks.

Sources: AP News, Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC News