posted on February 18, 2026 by Victoria Arroyo
As anticipated, the Trump Administration repealed EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding and EPA’s vehicle standards. The final rule didn’t actually attack the underlying science showing that climate change endangers human health and welfare; indeed, Trump’s EPA abandoned that approach because of the legal vulnerability of the flawed Department of Energy report that EPA had relied on in its proposal.
Instead, EPA relies on legal arguments – largely relitigating unsuccessful claims in the seminal 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA (“MA v. EPA”) and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, which upheld the endangerment finding (the Supreme Court denied cert in 2013). The Trump Administration is banking on a different outcome given the change in the make-up of the Supreme Court, with no justices from the MA v. EPA majority still on the bench. EPA invokes recent cases such as West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) in arguing against its own statutory authority (after acting on that authority in promulgating several regulations across administrations, including during Trump’s first term). These recent cases – and the major questions doctrine EPA cites – emphasize the “best reading” of statutes and should arguably result in less discretion for EPA to take this leap. This is especially true given Supreme Court cases such as MA v. EPA, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, AEP v. Connecticut and West Virginia v. EPA , which rely on (even when sometimes limiting) EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. Further, Justice Robert’s Loper Bright opinion clearly states that earlier decisions that relied on Chevron for statutory interpretation were not overruled.
In arguing against petitioners’ standing in MA v. EPA, the Bush Administration claimed that emissions from US mobile sources were insufficient to “cause or contribute” to global climate change and that curbing them would not redress harms. While these arguments failed in that context, EPA resuscitates them now, arguing that under the statute itself these billions of tons of annual emissions (exceeding all but four countries’ total emissions) are too trivial to make a meaningful “contribution” to warming. Interestingly, the CAA mobile source provisions (Section 202) only require emissions to “cause or contribute” to endangerment, whereas other parts of the CAA (Section 111) require them to “significantly contribute” to endangerment. EPA adds that controlling GHGs is “futile” given the scope of the problem – this nihilistic position is especially hypocritical given that its actions will dramatically increase emissions and climate impacts.
At the White House announcement, posters beside the podium boasted: “Saving $1.3 Trillion”– ignoring EPA’s own analysis, buried in tables, showing that the benefits of motor vehicle standards (at least $1.5 Trillion), far outstrip anticipated costs.
At that event, Trump didn’t stick to the script regarding the pivot away from arguments attacking the science (shocker). In response to a question about risks to health from his administration’s repeal, Trump replied, “It has nothing to do with public health. This was all a scam, a giant scam.” Continuing his Quixotic quest against “windmills,” Trump also made clear that he doesn’t “want even one built” during his term. While this rulemaking doesn’t directly address wind turbines, the power sector, or other stationary sources, the repeal of the endangerment finding underpinning CAA regulations is certainly a precursor to other regulatory dominoes falling.
As the inevitable legal challenges to EPA’s actions play out, a Pandora’s box of lawsuits and other legislative and regulatory actions will undoubtedly emerge, building on state and local nuisance suits and legislative and regulatory leadership. Sure, the Trump Administration is attacking these actions as well, but it’s hard to see these being precluded or preempted when EPA has effectively “left the field.”