Hailed as the “single largest deregulatory action in US history,” the Environmental Protection Agency repealed a 2009 scientific decision that gave the agency the authority to regulate climate change pollutants, also known as the Endangerment Finding.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has eliminated the scientific finding that determined planet warming gases also harm human health. 

For the last 15 years, that finding has served as the legal basis for EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, vehicles, and other sources. 

Reversal of the finding effectively pulls the legs out from the framework that underpins virtually all of the climate rules enacted since by the EPA – whose mandate is to regulate pollutants once it’s found that they damage public health and the environment. 

In a White House announcement, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin derided the Endangerment Finding as the “‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion.’

Critics in the US and worldwide slammed the US reversal as a politically-charged policy decision that would lead to more ill health as well as putting “millions” of lives at risk in the US and worldwide, if the new finding survives the court challenges that are expected to follow, in the words of former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. 

EPA following ‘letter of the law’

“The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning common sense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream,” Zeldin countered at a press conference at the White House on Thursday. He was joined by President Trump, who called the rule the legal foundation for the “Green New Scam.”

The 2009 finding issued after a technical assessment by EPA staff scientists determined that current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases, including methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrofluorocarbons, threaten public health in current and future generations. 

The ruling, which directly connected greenhouse gases to human health impacts for the first time, followed a 2007 Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases are also air pollutants covered by the 1970 Clean Air Act. But the Court also ordered the EPA to determine “whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.”

The White House announcement marked the culmination of years of backstage work by climate skeptics and conservatives aligned with President Donald Trump to undo the finding following his election to a second term. 

Speaking at a press conference alongside Zeldin yesterday at the White House, the President blamed the rule for costing “trillions of dollars in regulation” and for “driving up the cost of vehicles for American families and small businesses.” 

No longer a matter of debate 

The Administration statements also attacked the scientists who issued the findings for taking “novel mental leaps” and being part of an “ideological crusade” to connect greenhouse gases to human health harms, also describing the  2009 ruling as “legal fiction.”

Yet the evidence linking climate change and health is “no longer a matter of debate,” said Maria Neira, former World Health Organization Director of the Department of Climate, Environment and Health, told Health Policy Watch. 

“Evidence has grown exponentially since 2009. Today, it is no longer a matter of debate; it is a matter of record,” Neira said. “Research shows that heat extremes, air pollution, the spread of infectious diseases, and food insecurity driven by climate change are intensifying — and already costing millions of lives each year worldwide.”  

Furthermore, the Finding has led to changes in vehicle design that have reduced other harmful tailpipe pollution emissions, as well as making them more fuel efficient. So while the Administration claims that the repeal will save Americans $2400 per vehicle, critics pointed to the millions of dollars in long-term climate and pollution-related health costs that the reversal will entail – if tailpipe and power plant emissions indeed rise once more. And that’s regardless of new tariff policies that have also raised vehicle costs by thousands of dollars.

Tentative evidence is now resolved 

“Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved – and new threats have been identified,” said the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in a 2025 report.

The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding “disregards decades of unequivocal scientific evidence on the severe health threats posed by climate change and fossil fuel–related emissions, and on the associated harms to the broader economy,” said Dr Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown on Climate and Health, in a statement to Health Policy Watch. “It is a direct attack on the health and survival of people in the US and beyond,” she said. 

Her group recently published the first estimates of heat-related deaths – over half a million in the past decade – or one heat-related death per minute.

“Together with the promotion of coal burning, it shows the US administration is prioritizing the economic interests of a wealthy few to the detriment of people’s health and wellbeing. 

“As the US loses its scientific leadership, other countries have the opportunity to lead the way forward, ensuring a safe environment, and reaping the major benefits that the transition away from dirty fuels can deliver.”

Win for industry, deregulatory champions

The endangerment finding was based on political expediency – not scientific standards. The Biden and Obama administrations routinely abused this finding as an excuse to roll out red tape that destroyed jobs across America. I applaud the Trump administration for reversing this… https://t.co/ityqG36n1y

— Sen. John Barrasso (@SenJohnBarrasso) February 12, 2026

In this latest finding, the Administration argued that the 1970 Clean Air Act applies only to localized pollutants like smog and particulate matter – and not to the greenhouse gases, which disperse across the globe. 

That ignores, however, the fact that other polluting gases and particles also travel tens or hundreds of miles – and across borders, wreaking health damage on neighboring cities, rural areas, and countries. 

Other conservatives have argued that Congress should pass a new law to regulate greenhouse gases if it wishes to do so, instead of relying on the Clean Air Act. 

The debate over the economic cost of cleaner air regulations played a central part in the repeal, despite evidence that such regulations save millions in healthcare and disaster-related costs. 

“The final rule will save Americans over $1.3 trillion by removing the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions, and reporting obligations that exist solely to support the vehicle GHG regulatory regime,” said the EPA statement. “Americans will have certainty, flexibility and regulatory relief, allowing companies to plan appropriately, and empowering American families.”

Yet many emissions savings that followed the Endangerment Finding, such as start-stop ignitions in idling cars, also saved drivers some 7-26% in fuel economy savings. 

Wildfires and extreme weather 

While Administration officials touted the immediate economic benefits around the ruling, they were silent about the costs of extreme weather – even though there is increasing recognition in American communities that climate is one of the drivers. 

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding will shape our clinical reality for years to come,” argued Lisa Patel, a pediatric hospitalist and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, in an opinion piece.

“Clinically, the implications are straightforward. Increased greenhouse gas emissions mean more days of unhealthy air, higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, and more frequent and intense wildfires,” Patel explained. “For pediatricians, this translates into more asthma exacerbations, more emergency department visits, and more hospitalizations. 

“For obstetricians and neonatologists, it means higher risks of preterm birth, low birthweight, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For internists and cardiologists, it means higher rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure exacerbations during heat waves and pollution events,” she said.

Heatwaves and natural disasters costing more 

Already, the intensity of heatwaves and natural disasters is costing mounting damage, according to the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute, which stated in a recent policy brief: 

“The average American experiences 20 percent more extremely hot days than they did two decades ago, and the last decade was the warmest on record. 

“Hurricanes of all intensity categories have become more frequent, and the most extreme, Category 5, have doubled in frequency. 

“If planet-warming emissions continue to rise at the same rate they have over the last few decades, by the end of this century there may be seven times more extremely hot days compared to today. 

“In that scenario, nearly half of U.S. states could experience summer temperatures hotter than today’s summers in India or Egypt,” the Institute stated. “Going forward, the combined effects on labor productivity, health, and energy systems “could cost roughly 0.7 percent of GDP for every 1°F increase in temperature on average.” 

Environmental groups gear up for court fights

“The repeal will likely face strong legal challenges,” said Arthur Wyns, Assistant Director of the Australia’s Center for Disease Control, in a social media post. 

Several US environmental groups have already vowed to challenge the Administration’s decision.

These groups still do have the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, determining that climate pollutants  can potentially harm health, although a more conservative bench may be sympathetic to the Administration’s arguments that short of new Congressional Legislation, the 2009 Endangerment Finding represented overreach of the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.  

“This move is part of a growing pattern of hostility toward the American public: stripping protections and making people less safe, all while billionaires profit,” said Natural Resource Defense Council CEO Manish Bapna.

“NRDC will not let this stand. We will see them in court — and we will win.”

The Environmental Defense Fund echoed this sentiment. “This decision is now endangering all of it — and all of us.

“We need to know the truth about the challenges we face, not fake science. We need investment in our communities to promote health, support families, lower costs and power the economy. EDF will challenge this decision in court, where evidence matters, and keep working with everyone who wants to build a better, safer and more prosperous future.”

Looking at the opportunity – rather than costs 

Adds Neira: “This is not abstract science. It reflects Americans’ lived reality. Anyone who has fallen ill during a heatwave, struggled to breathe through wildfire smoke, or faced the aftermath of a devastating hurricane understands that climate change is not a distant environmental issue — it is an immediate and escalating threat to human health.

“But that is only half the story,” she added.

“When governments act to reduce the drivers of climate change, they also address some of the most pressing health challenges of our time. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner sources of electricity mean cleaner air — and fewer deaths from heart and lung disease. Designing cities around safe sidewalks and protected bike lanes encourages walking and cycling, increasing physical activity and lowering the risk of chronic illness.

“The benefits multiply across sectors. Climate action is not a sacrifice; it is a public health opportunity. By confronting climate change, we do not just protect the planet — we advance healthier, longer, and more equitable lives.”

Image Credits: White House, Matt Howard/ Unslash, WMO, Enel North America.