Trump Reverses Critical Greenhouse Gas Ruling, Sparks Controversy

Fri Feb 13 2026 00:42:43 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant regulatory shift, President Trump revokes the Obama-era 'endangerment finding' linked to greenhouse gases, declaring it a flawed policy that raised consumer costs. The decision faces strong opposition from environmental groups, raising concerns about its impact on public health and climate action.

President Trump has officially reversed a crucial 2009 ruling deeming certain greenhouse gases as threats to public health, a move hailed by his administration as a historic deregulation initiative. This decision has stirred significant backlash from environmental advocates who argue it undermines efforts to combat climate change and could lead to increased health risks and pollution. With legal challenges expected, the ramifications of this decision will likely shape future debates on environmental policy and regulation in the United States.

Trump Reverses Critical Greenhouse Gas Ruling, Sparks Controversy

In a significant regulatory shift, President Trump has officially revoked the Obama-era endangerment finding concluded in 2009, which classified a variety of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, as threats to public health. This ruling was pivotal to federal efforts aimed at reducing harmful emissions, particularly from vehicles.

Trump's administration describes the reversal as the largest deregulation in American history, asserting that it would reduce costs for automakers by approximately $2,400 per vehicle and lower car prices for consumers. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump labeled the previous policy as a disastrous Obama era policy that adversely affected the American auto industry and inflated consumer prices.

However, the decision has ignited robust opposition from environmental groups, which argue that undermining the endangerment finding poses serious consequences for climate action and public health. Organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund have reported that the change could result in an estimated additional $1.4 trillion in fuel costs for consumers and approximately 58,000 premature deaths, according to analyses of potential health impacts.

Critics point out that the rollback aligns with long-standing industry goals to ease regulatory burdens, potentially enabling the production of less fuel-efficient vehicles. This development raises alarms for car manufacturers with considerations about international market competitiveness and compliance with stricter emissions standards in other countries.

As the environmental community prepares to challenge the rollback in court, experts speculate that the legal battle may elevate the discourse on environmental regulation and could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. If upheld, this decision may impede future administrations from easily reinstating stringent emissions regulations without new legislative action.

The scientific basis for the reversal has also been brought into question, with reports of a Department of Energy panel allegedly dismissing widely accepted facts on the importance of regulating greenhouse gases leading to public skepticism about the administration's motivations.

As the consequences of this significant policy shift unfold, it remains to be seen how it will impact efforts to address climate change in a deeply divided political landscape.