Q&A: What does Trump’s repeal of US ‘endangerment finding’ mean for climate action?

The Trump administration has officially revoked the "endangerment finding," a key legal determination by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding, established during the Obama administration, served as the legal foundation for regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. By rescinding it, the administration effectively removes the federal government's authority to regulate emissions based on climate change concerns, marking a significant shift in U.S. environmental policy. The endangerment finding had enabled the EPA to implement regulations aimed at reducing emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources. Its repeal raises questions about the future of U.S. climate action, potentially undermining efforts to meet international commitments such as the Paris Agreement. Critics argue that this move could stall progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbate global warming, while supporters claim it will relieve regulatory burdens on industry and promote economic growth. This policy reversal occurs amid a global context of increasing climate ambition, with countries like China and members of the G7 expanding renewable energy capacity and setting more aggressive emissions targets. The U.S. withdrawal from this regulatory framework contrasts with trends in other major economies, where wind and solar power are becoming increasingly cost-competitive and central to energy strategies. The decision also complicates domestic efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and address environmental health risks associated with pollution. Overall, the repeal of the endangerment finding represents a pivotal moment in U.S. climate policy, signaling a retreat from federal regulatory authority on greenhouse gases. Its implications extend beyond national borders, influencing global climate negotiations and the pace of international efforts to combat climate change. The move has sparked intense debate over the balance between environmental protection and economic priorities in shaping the country’s energy future.