The Trump administration has rescinded a cornerstone climate rule and ordered federal agencies to lean further into coal power, triggering sharp backlash from scientists, lawmakers, and environmental groups.
Atmospheric scientist and Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Chris Gloninger, said the move eliminates the legal backbone of federal climate policy while pushing taxpayers toward higher energy costs.
He wrote that what was “slashed” was the 2009 endangerment finding, a 200-page scientific review that concluded greenhouse gases endanger public health.
That finding formed the legal basis for regulating carbon emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and factories under the Clean Air Act.
According to Scientific American, the Environmental Protection Agency formally rescinded the finding on Thursday.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it historic.
“As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers,” Zeldin said at a White House event alongside President Donald Trump.
The endangerment finding stemmed from the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which allowed the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Since 2009, it has underpinned vehicle emissions standards and other climate rules. Transportation accounted for 28% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022.
Gloninger argued that scrapping the finding wipes out federal authority to regulate carbon pollution in one stroke.
He also pointed to a separate executive order directing the Pentagon to purchase more coal-generated electricity.
Coal, he wrote, costs between $69 and $169 per megawatt-hour. Wind costs between $27 and $53. Solar costs between $38 and $78. He added that 99% of U.S. coal plants cost more to run than replacing them with brand-new wind or solar facilities.
“That’s your tax dollars buying the most expensive electricity on the market. By executive order,” Gloninger wrote.
He also highlighted public health impacts, citing research that linked 460,000 American deaths over 20 years to coal pollution.
He wrote that coal-related fine particulate matter is 2.1 times deadlier than other air pollution.
Cost Of Coal Versus Renewables
The White House has defended the rollback as an economic win.
According to The Guardian, the administration has described the move as the “largest deregulatory action in American history” and claimed it will save Americans $1.3 trillion, though officials have not detailed how that figure was calculated.
Critics say the costs could far outweigh the savings.
“This is corruption, plain and simple. Old-fashioned, dirty political corruption,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said at a rally outside EPA headquarters.
Legal And Political Backlash
Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club, have pledged to challenge the decision in court.
“We’re going to be taking this fight to the courts, and we are going to win,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticized the administration’s action in a statement.
“Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok,” Goldman said.
“Sacrificing people’s health, safety and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable.”
Former EPA official Joseph Goffman said the scientific foundation of the endangerment finding has only strengthened since 2009.
“Science did not change when Donald Trump was inaugurated,” Goffman said.
“What did change was the arrival of the new EPA management, determined to destroy the agency’s public health and environmental mission.”
The rollback also eliminates mileage credits for stop-start technology in idling cars that improved fuel economy by about 4%.
Democratic lawmakers have promised to press the issue in Congress.
“This is going to put climate change right back on the front burner of American politics,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said.
“They’re really going to regret what they’re doing, because the Republicans are going to pay a big political price.”
What’s At Stake
Supporters of the administration say rolling back the rules will cut red tape, lower energy prices and strengthen U.S. production.
Those opposed see it very differently. They argue that doubling down on coal, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, could result in higher health costs and more damage tied to climate change over time.
The fight now comes down to a simple question: Will pulling back federal authority over greenhouse gases actually lower costs for families, or will it result in higher power bills and more health risks down the road?
Court battles are almost certain, and the issue could end up back before the Supreme Court.
For now, the administration is moving forward, calling it a promise kept.
Opponents say the consequences will be measured not just in dollars, but in public health and climate impacts for years to come.