Health and environment groups in the US are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the 2009 “endangerment finding.” That finding determined greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare and provided a legal basis for regulations aimed at limiting emissions.
President Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” rescinded the finding in February. The EPA supported the move, describing it as the “single largest deregulatory action in US history.” The lawsuit, filed this week, argues the repeal endangers public health and welfare. “Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” said Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Trump’s revocation is part of a broader push to deregulate, boost fossil fuel production and roll back climate rules. But he is not the first US president whose policies harmed the environment. Below is a look at the endangerment finding, what its rescission means, and how past administrations have contributed to environmental degradation.
What is the ‘endangerment finding’?
The endangerment finding, issued under President Barack Obama, concluded that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose risks to public health and welfare. It enabled the EPA to impose rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Under this finding, power plants faced federal carbon limits or risked closure, oil and gas companies were pressured to detect and fix methane leaks and curb flaring, and auto standards were tightened to produce more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.
What does rescinding it mean?
Removing the endangerment finding strips the EPA of a key legal basis to limit greenhouse gases, making it easier for coal plants, refineries and petrochemical complexes to operate older, dirtier equipment, expand without modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.
“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes will harm practically every single person on the planet,” said policy researcher Brett Heinz. People near fossil fuel facilities will be among the most immediately affected by increased air and water pollution. Higher greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, vehicles and industry — along with continued deforestation — also amplify natural disasters by worsening heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts and sea-level rise.
Heinz argued that the primary beneficiaries of deregulation are wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, many of whom supported Trump politically. Experts say the scale of Trump’s deregulatory push is unprecedented; while past administrations altered rules, the current approach aims to dismantle many environmental protections entirely.
How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?
Environmental harm in US policy predates Trump. Key examples across administrations include:
– Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909): Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, treating rivers and land as resources for large infrastructure projects rather than ecosystems to protect.
– Harry Truman (1945–1953): Promoted rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion, commissioning interstate highways and encouraging car-centric development.
– Dwight Eisenhower (1953–1961): Oversaw the growth of the interstate highway system, cementing the private car as a development priority.
– Richard Nixon (1969–1974): Although Nixon signed major environmental laws and created the EPA, his administration supported massive fossil‑fuel expansion and military use of toxic herbicides such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
– Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Appointed officials to the EPA and Interior who favored expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands, rolled back regulations, cut EPA enforcement budgets, eased rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opened federal land to extractive industries.
– George W. Bush (2001–2009): Refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and withdrew US support in 2001, appointed officials skeptical of climate science, and promoted voluntary, industry-friendly approaches over binding emissions cuts.
– Barack Obama (2009–2017): Implemented landmark climate regulations but also presided over the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) boom that made the US a top oil and gas producer, locking in fossil fuel infrastructure and associated environmental risks like methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and local air pollution.
– Joe Biden (2021–2024): Approved large fossil projects such as the Willow oil project in Alaska and supported LNG export growth by greenlighting new and expanded export terminals and long‑term licenses. The Willow project was projected to release hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime.
Is this a partisan issue?
Not entirely. Some analysts say the failure to aggressively address global warming stems less from a simple Democrat-versus-Republican divide and more from neoliberal, pro‑business politics that prioritize economic growth and corporate freedom. This bipartisan tilt toward economic growth has often weakened environmental regulations.
Historically, environmental policy had broader bipartisan support — the EPA itself was created by Republican Richard Nixon in 1970. But since the 1980s, a stronger pro‑business stance, particularly within the Republican Party, led to greater pushback against environmental protections. Many Democrats still support climate-friendly policies to varying degrees, while sections of the Republican Party have moved to deny or downplay climate science.
What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?
The US has been one of the largest contributors to global warming. Environmental policy evolved as a response to industrialisation and urbanisation from the mid-19th century onward, at local, state and national levels. Much policy has been limited or inadequate when corporations exerted influence, though in some instances US policy led other nations.
The rise of pro‑business politics in the late 20th century shifted priorities, weakening protections and enforcement. This shift, combined with the influence of fossil fuel interests, has contributed to the US dragging its feet on stronger climate action.
How does this affect the rest of the world?
US policy often sets standards globally because of its economic and political influence over international institutions. When the US promotes fossil fuels or rejects stringent climate measures, it can discourage ambition elsewhere. Pressure from the US and high energy prices have prompted some regions, like parts of Europe, to scale back climate goals. For example, household electricity prices rose sharply in the EU between 2021 and 2022.
Global negotiations reflect these dynamics. Observers noted declining ambition at recent UN climate conferences, where some outcomes failed to include clear roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels. Critics argue that so long as the US pursues policies favoring fossil fuel interests, global efforts to protect the environment will face greater challenges.
