What the EPA’s Removal of the GHG ‘Endangerment Finding’ Means for Environmental Policy

By Kate Kupchak, Impact Associate

The current average temperature of Earth’s surface is about 1.42℃ warmer than it was in the 1800s before the Industrial Revolution, and reflects a record high for the last 100,000 years (World Meteorological Organization). Greenhouse gases have been scientifically proven as the leading cause for this global warming, through their “blanket effect” of trapping large amounts of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Despite this, as of February 12, 2026, the Trump Administration finalized its goal of rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal requisite used by previous administrations to regulate GHG emissions. 

This finding was a conclusion based on scientific consensus linking six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to both a growing global temperature and threats to public health and welfare. Historically, this offered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a framework for related federal policy decisions and the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Jordan).

The removal of the Endangerment Finding was an objective clearly outlined in the January 2025 Inauguration Day Executive Order and reflects the Trump Administration’s goals of reducing limits on emissions, as well as their previous references to climate change as a “hoax” in the global political sphere. According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, “the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America," (Brady & Domonoske).

With the repeal of what many have dubbed as the legal “bedrock” of the modern environmental movement in the United States, many have displayed concern for the future of environmental policy and progress (Friedman). As reported by the Environmental Defense Fund, this rollback is predicted to lead to a potential increase in the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by around 10 percent over the next 30 years (Environmental Defense Fund).

In the absence of federal regulation, the EPA will lose its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks under the Clean Air Act. This comes in favor of the Trump Administration’s objective in reinvigorating the national coal industry, which is currently responsible for 15-18% of the United State’s annual energy-related CO2 emissions (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 

The recent removal of EPA regulation may accelerate a sharp resurgence of the coal industry, despite its scientifically proven link to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. As of Wednesday, February 11th, The Department of Energy has already announced that it will spend $175 million in order to fund the restoration of six U.S. coal power plants (Department of Energy).

Although this repeal displays an unprecedented future for U.S. federal progress with climate change mitigation, it is largely anticipated that environmental-conscious policies will display a noticeable shift to state level and market-based actions (Lode, Santos, & Showalter). Without the federal greenhouse gas standards in place, it is unclear how states will progress. However, it is possible that there could be some more legal room for states to impose standards how they see fit. In states such as New York, California, and Vermont, in which climate legislation has previously been enacted, it will be a question of whether these states can fill the gap in environmental-conscious policy without federal regulation.