The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency has repealed the 2009 endangerment finding—a scientific determination that served as the legal foundation for federal climate regulations for 17 years—eliminating protections for millions of Americans facing escalating climate risks.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin delivered the keynote address at a Heartland Institute conference on Wednesday, telling climate change skeptics to "celebrate vindication" and declaring that the repeal reversed "decades of unthinking adherence to liberal politicians and environmental groups about the dangers of climate change." The move eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks and could trigger the dismantling of climate regulations on power plants, oil and gas facilities, and other stationary sources, according to experts.
The Scale of the Rollback
The endangerment finding, established in 2009, had been the central legal basis for regulating planet-warming emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources. By repealing it, the EPA has removed the scientific foundation that justified decades of environmental protections. The Trump administration justified the action by arguing the finding hurts industry and the economy, claiming the Obama and Biden administrations "twisted science" to determine that greenhouse gases pose a public health risk.
The repeal has already triggered legal challenges from nearly two dozen states, along with cities and public health and environmental groups seeking to restore the protections.
Who Bears the Cost
Environmentalists and public health advocates have condemned the decision as reckless at a moment when climate change is creating greater risks of extreme weather, including stronger hurricanes, more dangerous floods, and more intense wildfires. Joe Bonfiglio, U.S. director of the Environmental Defense Fund, pointed to immediate harms already visible to Americans: rising costs of gasoline and other energy, and more frequent occurrences of extreme weather such as the gigantic heat dome that baked the Southwest last month and smashed March heat records in 14 states.
Bonfiglio called Zeldin's appearance before the conservative group "surreal" and accused the EPA administrator of asking for credit while abandoning the agency's core mission. "Having the EPA administrator serve as their opening act isn't just embarrassing—it's a signal of how completely the Trump administration has abandoned its obligation to protect the public from pollution," Bonfiglio said.
The Heartland Institute's Role
The Heartland Institute, based in Illinois, describes itself as a "free-market think tank" and explicitly states that a key goal is to "challenge the narrative that the world faces a climate crisis" driven by the burning of fossil fuels. The organization does not disclose its funder list but has received financial support from oil and gas interests. James Taylor, the group's president, hailed Zeldin's speech and called him "the greatest EPA administrator ever."
Bonfiglio characterized Heartland as "not a serious scientific organization" but rather "a disinformation factory," and said the group's core position depends on Americans not acknowledging the reality of climate change visible in their daily lives.
Official Defense of the Decision
An EPA spokeswoman responded to criticism by stating that "the era of EPA as a vehicle for radical ideology is over." Carolyn Holran said Zeldin speaks before "a wide variety of ideologically different groups and individuals" to promote the Trump EPA's agenda, and claimed the agency has returned its focus to fulfilling statutory obligations to protect human health and the environment "backed by gold standard science, not doomsday models designed to scare the public into compliance."
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, is widely believed to be under consideration for a possible promotion to attorney general, following Pam Bondi's forced departure last week.
Why This Matters:
The repeal of the endangerment finding represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government addresses one of the most significant threats to public health and environmental protection. For 17 years, this scientific determination provided the legal and moral foundation for regulations protecting Americans from pollution linked to climate change. Its elimination removes guardrails that constrained industry emissions and signals that the federal government will no longer use its regulatory authority to address climate risks—even as Americans experience their consequences through extreme weather, energy costs, and public health threats. The decision also raises questions about institutional integrity: whether scientific findings can be reversed based on political ideology rather than evidence, and whether the EPA will continue to function as an independent agency protecting public welfare or become an instrument of the industries it is mandated to regulate. The pending legal challenges suggest this matter will ultimately test whether courts will uphold the repeal or restore the protections millions of Americans depend on.