Donald Trump abolished the “Endangerment Finding”, a 2009 decision which made it possible to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. A measure with major legal consequences in the country and potentially decisive for the balance of the global climate fight.

Published on: 02/11/2026 - 6:30 p.m. Modified on: 02/12/2026 - 8:54 p.m.

It was one of the legal pillars of American climate policy. Donald Trump announced on Thursday February 12 that he would repeal a text published under Barack Obama's mandate and serving as the basis for the fight against greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, a major turnaround which should deal a significant blow to the climate action of the world's leading power.

This text, called "Endangerment finding" and adopted in 2009 had "no legal basis", accused the Republican president from the White House. This decision recognized the threat posed by greenhouse gases to public health and has since allowed their emissions to be regulated at the federal level.

As a direct consequence, this measure will drastically weaken the ability of American authorities to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants or industry. It also opens the way to a major legal battle, as this legal basis has structured the entire climate architecture of the United States for more than fifteen years.

Beyond the national legal issue, as the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), the United States plays a central role in the balance of international climate governance.

The repeal of this text could weaken global efforts to reduce emissions, revive diplomatic tensions around the objectives set by the international community and redefine, implicitly, the role of Washington in the fight against global warming.

“The largest deregulation measure in US history”

The “Endangerment Finding” is a body of scientific evidence, published in 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal environmental protection agency, and serving as the legal basis for numerous regulations aimed at combating global warming.

This decision has its origins in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, decided in 2007 by the Supreme Court. Under a 1970 air quality law, the "Clean Air Act", the highest American court thus considered in this text that the EPA was competent to regulate state emissions. It was then tasked with carrying out a scientific study to determine whether GHGs were dangerous for health.

In 2009, with the "Endangerment finding", the agency classified six gases as pollutants: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbon, perfluorocarbon and sulfur hexafluoride.

However, last July, the current head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, himself announced that he was tackling the key decision of the Obama administration: his objective was to allow vast deregulation for the automobile sector by relaxing the rules on vehicle emissions. Lee Zeldin himself welcomed this upcoming repeal, declaring – from a car dealership in Indianapolis, in the north of the country – that “if finalized, (this) announcement would be the largest deregulation measure in the history of the United States”.

These comments are not surprising, since the EPA being a federal agency placed under the direct authority of the president and his administration, he was appointed by Donald Trump.

Read alsoIn the United States, the NOAA agency in the sights of climate skeptic Trump

Studies contested by climatologists

The US president, who has already called climate change "the biggest scam in history", had previously commissioned a report questioning the "legality and continued relevance" of the "Endangerment finding".

In a document of more than 300 pages, the EPA asserts, against the broad global scientific consensus, that "extreme weather phenomena have not incontestably increased compared to historical records" and even welcomes the "beneficial effects" of GHG emissions, particularly on agricultural productivity.

According to the current head of the EPA, the agency had previously made “intellectual shortcuts”.

Parts of the document rely on studies that are controversial or disputed by most climate scientists, such as the Department of Energy (DOE) report that downplays the impacts of climate change and has been massively criticized by the scientific community for lack of rigor, peer review, and arbitrary selection of arguments.

Reports like the one produced last September by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (an independent scientific institution) have on the contrary reaffirmed the scientific solidity of the "Endangerment finding", emphasizing that the evidence linking GHGs to health and climate risks is even stronger today than in 2009.

“Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is cynically pretending to deny that climate change poses a risk to the health and well-being of Americans,” Meredith Hankins, federal legal director for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Guardian. “This is the largest attack ever on federal authority to combat the climate crisis.”

To seeSnowstorms in the United States: the role of global warming demonstrated

Legal battle

On Tuesday, to justify his plan to repeal the "Endangerment finding", Donald Trump assured that this would allow Americans to save money.

His decision ends limits on vehicles and would allow the government to tackle a range of other regulations, including around power plants.

This could initially have profound consequences at the American federal level. Its removal weakens the entire regulatory architecture and could severely limit the ability of the federal government to once again impose emissions reductions without intervention from Congress.

“It will allow Americans to save 1.3 trillion dollars by avoiding stifling regulations,” assures Karoline Leavitt, spokesperson for the White House. “This is further evidence of this administration’s commitment to making life more affordable for Americans every day.”

However, there are still recourses. Several federal states, notably led by Democrats, as well as environmental organizations, could thus challenge the repeal in court, in the name of the scientific consensus on the risks linked to climate change and existing case law.

“This will not go unanswered,” assured Meredith Hankins, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "EPA's sloppy legal arguments should be ridiculed in court. We will confront them in court – and we will win."

According to the Guardian, the Environmental Defense Fund and the environmental legal organization Earthjustice have also promised to sue the EPA and the Trump administration.

Such a confrontation could last for years and contribute to a lasting crippling of federal climate action. In this context, the role of states would become even more central: some, like California, could maintain strict standards, while others would choose deregulation, accentuating the environmental fragmentation of the country.

The repeal finally sends a strong political signal in favor of fossil fuels, confirming a priority given to growth and energy independence, rather than reducing emissions.

In the United States, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions: it represented approximately 29% of total GHG emissions in 2022, according to the EPA.

Globally, road transport represents a large but less dominant share of the global total, around 12% of global emissions, according to the International Transport Forum/OECD.

To (re)seeFight against global warming: Donald Trump's strategy of failure

An impact beyond American borders

The world's second largest emitter of GHGs (behind China), the United States occupies a central place in the balance of the fight against global warming.

In 2023, the United States accounted for around 11% of global emissions, behind China (around 30%) and far ahead of the European Union or India, according to international estimates. In absolute value, these emissions amount to several billion tons of CO2 equivalent, with nearly 6.3 billion tons produced in 2022, according to the EPA. This position makes it a central player in the global fight against global warming.

Also, the weakening of their regulatory capacity risks complicating international efforts to reduce emissions and would further distance the objectives set by the international community to contain the rise in global temperatures.

Even without a formal withdrawal from international agreements, large-scale deregulation could partially undermine the American climate commitment and discourage other states from intensifying their own transition policies.

Page updated on February 12 with the official repeal of the text.

Keywords associated with the article

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.