The Environmental Protection Agency officially proposed to terminate what President Trump has long called the “climate hoax.” If successful, the federal government will be out of the climate regulation business with no hope of returning to it without congressional authorization.
The Trump EPA proposed to rescind a 2009 Obama EPA rule called the “endangerment finding.” In that rulemaking, the Obama EPA determined that emissions of greenhouse gases threatened human health and welfare by causing global warming. Simultaneously with the EPA proposal, the Trump Department of Energy issued a scientific report summarizing why emissions are actually a good thing and threaten nothing.
The scientific findings, however, are superfluous since EPA never had express authority from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the first place. Controversy and litigation about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases resulted in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the Court determined in a 5-4 holding that EPA could, but did not have to, regulate emissions.
But the decision was controversial. Clean Air Act co-author and famed Democrat Congressman, the late John Dingell, afterwards stated: “I think the Supreme Court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. I was present when we wrote that legislation and we thought it was clear enough that it did not, and we didn’t clarify it thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.”
Following the decision, the Bush EPA decided that it would not regulate emissions. When the Obama administration came into power in 2009, it reversed the Bush EPA’s decision and began using the endangerment finding as the basis for regulation of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.
Although many questioned the scientific basis of the Obama EPA’s decision, it was impossible to get a judicial hearing on the science. Federal judges informally decided decades ago that they would defer to regulatory agency decisions on questions of science.
With the endangerment finding apparently firmly in place, the Obama administration, and later the Biden administration, proceeded to regulate tailpipe and power plant emissions of greenhouse gases.
Cracks in the ability of EPA to use the endangerment finding soon began to appear. In 2014, the Supreme Court determined that the Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to use the endangerment finding to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial smokestacks. In 2022, the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA nullified an effort to regulate emission from power plants, holding that EPA could not launch major regulatory programs without express congressional authorization.
Today, all that remains of EPA’s endangerment finding-based rules are tailpipe regulations in the form of the Biden EPA’s de facto EV mandate, a rule that the Trump administration is in the process of reversing.
Since the Obama EPA made the endangerment finding, electricity prices have soared. Gas prices and inflation soared during the Biden administration. Tens of thousands of high-paying coal miner jobs have been destroyed and their communities devastated.
Our electricity grid has been made less reliable by the advent of existentially subsidized wind and solar power. Periods of peak electricity demand like summer heat waves and winter cold spells now routinely result in blackout/brownout warnings. This problem will get worse before it gets better with the ongoing electricity demand from AI data centers and the re-industrialization of America.
Blue states and their climate activist allies will no doubt sue the Trump EPA to stop the rescission of the endangerment finding. But all this will accomplish is the Supreme Court almost certainly reversing its original sin committed in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some of us can’t wait.
Steve Milloy is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a biostatistician, and lawyer, who publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.
The Trump administration recently unveiled a proposal to repeal the 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” a controversial U.S. climate policy that declared carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule, if finalized, would dismantle the legal foundation for numerous climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, repealing all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the move as “the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” arguing that the Endangerment Finding has been misused to impose costly regulations.
“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said. “They created this endangerment finding, and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
The proposal, which follows an executive order from President Trump, directs the EPA to review the findings’ legality. It is part of a broader push to roll back 31 environmental regulations.
Zeldin criticized the Obama and Biden administrations, saying they “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.”
In states like Arizona, the Endangerment Finding has been used to enforce mandates and shut down energy sources that Arizona relies on.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club celebrated the EPA’s proposal, viewing it as a critical step toward alleviating economic burdens imposed on Arizona families and businesses from overreaching environmental mandates.
The Club argues that the Endangerment Finding has forced the closure of reliable energy facilities and imposed costly environmental policies that have led to soaring utility costs and raised concerns about the reliability of the state’s energy grid.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, reacted to the Trump administration’s proposal, saying, “[The Endangerment Finding] has always been junk science used to shut down Arizona’s economy, close down our coal plants, and force our state into California-style green mandates. Repealing the Endangerment Finding is a necessary step to restore energy independence, protect ratepayers, and stop the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA from hijacking our economy in the name of climate alarmism.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Trump administration is gearing up to try to revoke one of the most overreaching, unscientific regulatory edifices ever erected: the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” News broke this week that the Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to rescind this cornerstone of federal climate policy, which declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a danger to human health and welfare.
If this move succeeds, it would limit the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, and industries—a prospect that has the climate alarmist crowd clutching their pearls. And frankly, it’s about time someone challenged this rank absurdity.
Let’s take a walk down memory lane to 2009, when the Obama-era EPA, emboldened by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, decided to anoint itself the arbiter of America’s energy future. The endangerment finding was born, asserting that CO2 – literally plant food, and the fundamental building block for all life on planet Earth – is actually a “pollutant” that “endangers public health” as defined under the Clean Air Act.
This vast expansion of the regulatory state wasn’t based on some groundbreaking scientific discovery but rather on a political agenda dressed up in green rhetoric. The finding has since provided the legal foundation for a slew of regulations, from tailpipe emissions standards to power plant rules, all designed to choke the fossil fuel industry and push the U.S. toward a so-called “clean energy” utopia that exists only in the fever dreams of climate activists.
Now, the Trump EPA, led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, appears poised to dismantle this house of cards. Zeldin’s draft proposal argues that the EPA overstepped its authority by issuing such a sweeping determination.
The plan focuses on a legal argument that the EPA’s administrator lacks the power to make broad proclamations about greenhouse gases without specific congressional authorization. This is a direct jab at the 2007 Supreme Court decision, a judicial overreach that gave unelected bureaucrats a blank check to regulate the economy. It is key to also remember that that decision came at a time when the Chevron Deference, which the Court did away with a year ago, was still in effect.
Adopted in 1984, the Chevron Deference held that courts must defer to the judgment of regulators when interpreting the congressional intent of federal statutes. But the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate CO2, a point even the late Rep. John Dingell, a co-author of the law, made clear.
Of course, the climate alarm lobby will drag this fight into the courts, so overturning the finding will not be easy. The EPA must navigate a minefield of procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the alarmists will try to overwhelm the courts with claims that climate change has only grown since 2009, asserting that every extreme weather event somehow proves their case.
But the Trump administration isn’t denying climate change outright; it’s questioning whether the EPA has the legal authority to act as America’s climate czar. This is a fight worth having, because if the agency can regulate CO2 without clear congressional approval, what’s stopping it from declaring water vapor a pollutant next?
The bigger picture here illustrates the absurdity of the energy transition itself. The endangerment finding has been a cudgel to force a shift away from reliable, affordable fossil fuels toward a fantasy of windmills and solar panels that can’t power a modern economy. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, but even if we zeroed out emissions tomorrow, global temperatures would barely budge without similar action from China and India.
Meanwhile, Americans bear the brunt of higher energy costs and a less reliable grid. Rescinding the endangerment finding could free up the economy to innovate without the EPA’s heavy hand, letting market forces—not bureaucrats—drive energy and climate solutions.
This move is a bold step toward dismantling the regulatory state’s stranglehold on American energy. It won’t be quick or easy, and the climate zealots will fight tooth and nail. But if the Trump administration can pull it off, it’ll be a victory for common sense over green dogma, a win for innovation over regulation. A long, hard fight lies ahead, but it is one worth having, and which is long overdue.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Australia-based energy firm Woodside announced Monday plans to invest $17 billion in a new liquefied natural gas export facility to be sited in south Louisiana. Company CEO and Managing Director Meg O’Neill said the Louisiana LNG facility represents the single largest greenfield energy project investment, and the largest foreign direct investment in the state’s history.
In a release, the company said the project will support 15,000 jobs during the construction phase and, when completed, will sport a total export capacity of more than 27 million tons per annum of LNG. Originally named the Driftwood LNG project by previous owner Tellurian, Woodside acquired the project in 2024 for just $900 million.
The timing of Woodside’s announcement on Monday, which represented the 99th day of President Donald Trump’s second administration, serves to symbolize the impressive success the President and his senior appointees have had in completely changing the energy and climate policy debate in the U.S. across their first 100 days. Nowhere has this sea change in policy been more obvious than as it relates to the LNG export industry.
When Trump was sworn into office on January 20, America’s LNG sector had spent the previous 358 days as a target of demonization by former President Joe Biden and his senior officials. That stemmed from the decision by the White House to implement a so-called “pause” in permitting of new LNG facilities like Louisiana LNG on January 27 last year. Prior to last November’s election, that pause appeared destined to become a permanent feature of federal policy had Kamala Harris won the presidency.
President Trump canceled the Biden pause with a Day 1 executive order, and the industry has since resumed the pace of rapid expansion that had made it one of America’s great growth industries prior to Biden’s irrational move last year.
The resumption of the LNG industry’s rapid growth path is just one of many success stories which Trump’s energy team of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin can point to at the end of this first 100 days time period.
At Interior, Secretary Burgum can point to his efforts to return the federal oil and gas leasing program to normal order both onshore and offshore after four years of its being held hostage by Biden’s Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. He can also highlight last week’s announcement detailing efforts to speed up permitting approvals related requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Zeldin is able to point to his effort to freeze $20 billion in highly questionable grants awarded by his predecessor, Michael Regan, during the final days of the Biden presidency, and claw them back a major savings. He has also embarked on a study focused on the potential reversal of the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, a finding that classifies carbon dioxide, the fundamental building block for all life on Planet Earth, as a pollutant which can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. A successful reversal of that finding could lead to the restoration of honesty in air quality regulation and a focus on elimination of real pollution, which was the intent of the law as it was passed by congress.
Secretary Wright has less ability to directly impact regulatory polices to the nature of his job, but he has become the most effective spokesman for commonsense energy policies to ever hold the Energy Secretary position. He has not shied away from taking on controversial topics, like the need to revitalize the nation’s coal industry to take advantage of America’s enormous wealth of that resource. Wright has also been very blunt and effective in highlighting the role the wind industry has played in forcing consumer utility costs up to all-time highs under the Biden administration.
Taken as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more impactful 100 days related to energy and climate policy than this administration has achieved. Trump’s legion of critics won’t agree with the direction he and his appointees have taken, but they can’t honestly claim they aren’t producing major results. For Trump and his team, it is a simple case of promises made, promises kept.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
This past November was a good time to be a Republican, especially here in Arizona. Not only did President Donald Trump win our state in a landslide victory, but Republicans expanded their majorities in both the Arizona House and Senate—despite being outspent in every single race.
While this turn of events shocked many in the corporate media who were convinced that Arizona was on its way from being a purple state to a blue state, we knew that voter registration trends told a different story.
Over the last couple of years, the gap between registered Republicans and Democrats in Arizona widened from 3.04% in 2020 to 4.03% in 2022. By April of last year, it had increased to 5.77%. And by November, it had expanded to 6.77%, a registration increase that proved decisive in President Trump’s overwhelming victory.
Now, 5 months removed from their electoral wipeout in November, there has been a lot of discussion about whether the Democrats’ political fortunes in Arizona would be reversing after their blowout loss to Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the latest voter registration numbers poured plenty of cold water on those dreams…
