Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin has announced a proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a key legal basis for more than $1 trillion in federal climate regulations — including the Biden administration’s electric vehicle mandate. If finalized, the move would eliminate EPA climate regulations on motor vehicles and engines, restoring greater consumer choice in the auto market. The Endangerment Finding has allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from a wide range of sources, including cars, trucks, power plants, airplanes, and oil and gas operations. Zeldin argues that the finding imposes excessive regulatory burdens on both transportation and stationary emission sources. The EPA estimates that rescinding it would save Americans approximately $54 billion annually by rolling back all greenhouse gas standards.
In 2007, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA gave the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the EPA determined that global warming threatened public health or welfare. In response, the Obama administration issued the Endangerment Finding, which the Biden administration later used to mandate that by 2032, two-thirds of light-duty vehicles and 46% of medium-duty vehicles manufactured must be electric — effectively limiting consumer choice. The newly proposed rescission of the Endangerment Finding would eliminate all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. It would also include provisions such as off-cycle credits.
According to American Trucking Association President and CEO Chris Spear, “This electric-truck mandate put the trucking industry on a path to economic ruin and would have crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses. Moreover, it kicked innovation to the curb by discarding available technologies that can further drive down emissions at a fraction of the cost. For four decades, our industry has proven that we are committed to reducing emissions. The trucking industry supports cleaner, more efficient technologies, but we need policies rooted in real-world conditions.”
While announcing the repeal, Zeldin explained how the finding was based on obsolete data and misrepresented evidence on the impact of carbon dioxide emissions, calling the repeal the “most significant deregulatory action in U.S. history.” He added that “[t]here are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country.” Zeldin is challenging the endangerment finding on a legal and procedural basis. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking repealing the finding argues that the section of the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to regulate emissions standards to address climate change.
The EPA cited a U.S. Department of Energy report that was also released on the same day. This report reviews underreported aspects of climate science, indicating that climate models exaggerate estimates of future global warming, carbon-dioxide-induced warming may be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial. The report was written by five scientists who conducted the analysis independent of the Trump administration’s Department of Energy.
Since 2005, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have declined by over 20%, primarily due to innovation and a shift from coal to natural gas in the power generation sector. That compares to China, whose carbon dioxide emissions have grown 85% since 2005 and is still building an average of two large coal-fired plants a week. Environmentalists, however, prefer to highlight China’s increased solar and wind capacity — inefficient technologies that produce a fraction of the energy that coal plants are capable of producing.
Zeldin’s proposed rule to rescind the endangerment finding must go through a public comment period that ends September 21, and the rule is likely to face lawsuits challenging the change. Zeldin is requesting people on both sides of the issue to submit comments.
Analysis
Supporters of rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding argue that the move represents a necessary course correction to restore regulatory balance, protect consumer freedom, and prevent economic harm. The Endangerment Finding has served as the legal foundation for sweeping and costly federal climate regulations, including mandates that restrict the types of vehicles Americans can buy and limit the technologies industries can use. These mandates have imposed significant burdens on key sectors such as transportation, energy, and manufacturing — costs that ultimately get passed on to families and businesses. Eliminating these regulatory barriers is expected to save Americans $54 billion annually, unlock over $1 trillion in long-term economic value, and boost GDP by as much as $440 billion each year. Importantly, this move does not abandon environmental progress; U.S. emissions have already fallen over 20% since 2005, largely thanks to market-driven innovation — not federal mandates. By removing legally questionable restrictions, the EPA’s proposed rule would shift the focus from punitive regulation to practical, innovation-led solutions that align environmental goals with economic realities.
