Shaking the Foundation: The Deep-Seated Game Behind the Trump Administration's Repeal of Climate Regulatory Authority
19/01/2026
On January 7, 2025, a document was quietly delivered to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Titled "Proposal to Repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding Final Rule," this proposal signals the Trump administration's attempt to complete what its EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has called the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. Its target is the legal cornerstone of the federal government's climate regulatory authority—the 2009 Endangerment Finding. This clash involving science, law, and politics will not only reshape the landscape of U.S. environmental policy but may also drop a bombshell on the global chessboard of climate governance.
The Birth and Shaking of the Legal Foundation.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the justices determined that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of pollutants and directed the EPA to assess, based on scientific evidence, whether these gases endanger public health and welfare. This lawsuit, initiated by state governments, cities, and environmental organizations, ultimately brought climate issues formally under the federal regulatory legal framework.
Although the Bush administration at the time employed delaying tactics, after President Obama took office in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally issued the "Endangerment Finding" based on that ruling and extensive scientific evidence. This document clearly concluded that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, indeed endanger public health and welfare by driving climate change. While this finding itself is not a direct regulatory measure, it acts like a key, unlocking the legal pathway for the EPA to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Initially, this key was primarily used to unlock the door to vehicle emission standards. Subsequently, its application scope rapidly expanded. Based on this determination, the Obama administration introduced the Clean Power Plan, aimed at limiting carbon emissions from power plants, and established new regulations targeting methane leaks in the oil and gas industry. It became the common legal pillar for a series of climate policies. Analysis indicates that revoking this determination would not only undermine specific regulations but would also hollow out the legal foundation of the entire federal climate regulatory system, making it exceptionally vulnerable to future legal challenges.
Dual Fronts: Legal Strategies and Scientific Controversies
The Trump administration's proposal for repeal is advancing simultaneously on two fronts: legal interpretation and scientific consensus.
At the legal level, the core argument of the proposal is to redefine the jurisdictional scope of pollutants. The government's legal team contends that greenhouse gases should not be considered pollutants in the traditional sense, as their impact on health is indirect and global rather than localized. They argue that regulation within a single country's borders cannot substantially address a global issue. This rhetoric attempts to reframe climate change as a transnational challenge that exceeds the original legislative intent of the Clean Air Act and is unsuitable for federal unilateral regulation. In essence, this represents a roundabout challenge to the spirit of the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, seeking to narrow the practical applicability of the Supreme Court's decision through administrative means.
On the scientific front, the offensive was more direct. To undermine the scientific consensus that supported the 2009 determination, the administration directed the Department of Energy to establish a working group led by climate change skeptics who doubt human activity as the cause, aiming to produce a report challenging mainstream scientific conclusions. However, this initiative quickly became mired in controversy. The report faced widespread criticism from the scientific community for misquoting and misinterpreting the conclusions of the studies it cited. Environmental organizations subsequently filed lawsuits, alleging that the group's formation violated federal open process rules. Ultimately, Energy Secretary Chris Wright disbanded the working group. Although this attempt to manufacture scientific controversy ended in embarrassment, it clearly revealed the administration's intent to interfere with scientific assessments and seek justification for a policy shift.
EPA Administrator Zeldin's speech at the Ford plant in Ohio highlighted the economic narrative behind this legal battle. He directly linked deregulation to lowering car prices and promoting industrial development, attempting to transform the complex legal and scientific disputes into straightforward economic benefit appeals, aiming to gain support from specific voter groups.
The Unavoidable Reality: Scientific Consensus and Climate Urgency
Regardless of how intense the legal debates may be, an unavoidable backdrop is the increasingly severe climate reality. The year 2025 has been confirmed by climatologists as the third hottest year on record globally. From the escalating wildfires in California to the intensifying hurricane threats along the Gulf Coast, the impacts of climate change have become tangible within the United States.
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration's push to repeal the "Endangerment Finding" has sparked a strong backlash from the scientific community. As early as July 2023, when the proposal was first announced, over 1,000 scientists and experts jointly signed a letter sounding the alarm. In the letter, they clearly stated: In 2009, the scientific evidence regarding human-caused climate change and its impacts was unequivocal. Since then, the evidence has become even more alarming and compelling. Data continuously released by agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA has further fortified the wall of scientific consensus.
Human activities causing global warming have evolved from a scientific hypothesis to a conclusion repeatedly validated by observed facts. The government's attempt to deny this scientific cornerstone through administrative means has been criticized as a departure from the public interest. Manish Bapna, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, pointedly accused: This is the latest evidence that the U.S. President is trying to transform the Environmental Protection Agency into a 'Polluter Protection Agency.' This struggle has transcended mere policy differences, escalating into a fundamental conflict between facts and positions, public interest and specific industrial interests.
Ultimate Battlefield: The Game of Justice and Political Legacy
It is almost certain that once the Environmental Protection Agency officially announces the repeal of the rule, a fierce legal battle will immediately commence. Environmental organizations, along with states and cities supporting climate action, are already prepared. The focus of the litigation will be highly concentrated.
The plaintiff will undoubtedly seize upon the 2007 precedent of Massachusetts v. EPA. Although the current Supreme Court holds a conservative majority and has shown a willingness in recent years to overturn precedents, the ruling itself remains valid. The challenge lies in whether an administrative agency can unilaterally overturn its predecessor's determination—which was based on a Supreme Court mandate and solid scientific evidence—merely through a new rule. The court must decide whether such an overturn constitutes a reasonable update of scientific judgment or an arbitrary and capricious administrative action.
The historical record is not entirely favorable for the Trump administration. The 2009 "Endangerment Finding" itself has faced multiple legal challenges but has been upheld each time. Administrative agencies bear a high burden of proof when altering such significant scientific determinations, requiring them to demonstrate that new decisions are supported by a robust record and are not politically motivated. The previous failed attempt by the Department of Energy's scientific working group may undermine the government's ability to argue the credibility of its scientific basis in court.
The deeper game lies in the timing and political cycles. The process of rule-making, litigation advancement, and potential appeals to the Supreme Court may last for months or even years. Its ultimate outcome will likely depend on the results of the 2028 general election. If there is a change in administration, the new government could once again revoke this repeal decision. This means that the core objective of the current action may not only be to achieve long-term legal changes but also to clear regulatory obstacles for the fossil fuel industry during a critical period and solidify a political stance opposing federal climate mandates.
Aftermath: Domestic Rifts and Global Vacuum
This battle surrounding the "Hazard Determination" has far-reaching implications beyond Washington. Its direct consequence is the exacerbation of domestic environmental policy fragmentation in the United States. The retreat of federal-level regulation shifts pressure and responsibility to state governments and the private sector. States like California and New York, which have already set ambitious climate goals, will continue to advance their policies, but conflicts with the federal government will intensify. Businesses will face an uncertain regulatory environment, forcing them to conduct more complex risk calculations when investing in low-carbon technologies.
At the global level, the United States, as the largest cumulative carbon emitter in history, will send complex signals to the world due to the systematic weakening of climate regulatory authority at the federal level. This will undoubtedly undermine the political momentum for global climate cooperation and provide excuses for other countries unwilling to adopt strong climate actions. Although actions by U.S. states, cities, and businesses continue, the absence of federal leadership will create a difficult-to-fill vacuum in international negotiations.
From a broader perspective, this struggle reveals a core contradiction in modern environmental governance: while addressing transnational, long-term global crises such as climate change requires steadfast, continuous scientific guidance and regulatory frameworks, short-term domestic political cycles and interest group competition can easily undermine their foundations. What the Trump administration attempted to dismantle was not merely a document from 2009, but the very mechanism that translates scientific consensus into enduring policy actions.
Regardless of the final court ruling, this action has already left a deep mark on the history of U.S. environmental politics. It serves as a reminder that in climate issues, the foundation of law can be built upon science, yet it may also be shaken by politics. In this game, what is truly at stake is far more than an administrative determination—it is the evidence-based collective action capability essential for addressing the climate crisis. When the cornerstone of regulation is treated as a political bargaining chip, the cost will be measured by generations to come.