In July 2025, Donald Trump announced a major decision: to repeal the Endangerment Finding, the legal pillar of US climate policy.
This text, adopted in 2009 under Obama, allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It officially recognized that these gases pose a danger to public health and the well-being of US citizens. It was based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark decision for the climate. Thanks to this text, the EPA had been able to regulate emissions from power plants, vehicles, and large polluting industries.
Trump justifies a “pro-industry” measure
For Trump, this regulation was hurting U.S. economic growth by “strangling” industry with costly standards. His advisers believe that removing this legal basis will boost investment and strengthen national competitiveness. The president wants to encourage fossil fuel sectors such as coal, gas, and oil, which he considers essential to America. He presents this decision as an act of economic sovereignty in the face of standards imposed by “the green left.” But this decision could have serious and lasting consequences for climate action in the United States.
The EPA stripped of its legal basis
By removing the Endangerment Finding, the administration is depriving the EPA of its basis for limiting large-scale emissions. This affects power plants as well as combustion engine cars and heavy industries such as steel and cement. The EPA will no longer be able to set binding limits without new legislation passed by Congress. However, such legislation seems difficult to pass in a highly polarized political landscape. As a result, any ambitious federal regulation becomes legally very uncertain, if not impossible in the short term. Even if a future Democratic administration wanted to take action, it would have to start almost from scratch.
AN Immediate reaction from states and NGOs
California, Massachusetts, New York State, and several NGOs have already announced legal action. They accuse Trump of denying established scientific facts and threatening the public health and climate of Americans. For them, this decision violates the constitutional duty to protect the environment and the well-being of citizens. Opponents point out that the United States remains theoretically committed to the Paris Agreement. But Trump refuses to recognize this commitment, which he considers useless and economically disadvantageous. The legal battle is likely to be a long one, and could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Trump’s policy consistent with his first term
This measure is part of a logical sequence of attacks on environmental policy since 2017. During his first term, Trump eliminated or weakened more than 100 environmental rules and protections. He withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2020, causing an international outcry. He canceled the Clean Power Plan, which called for a gradual reduction in emissions from power plants. This plan was replaced by a much more flexible rule that favors the coal industry. He also weakened vehicle fuel economy standards, making them less demanding in terms of energy efficiency. He attempted to prevent California from imposing its own stricter automotive standards. The legal battle between the state and the federal government lasted for months.
Trump opens up natural areas to exploitation
Furthermore, Trump also authorized oil drilling in previously protected areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He reduced the size of several national parks, facilitating access for mining and extraction activities. The Clean Water Rule, which protected small streams and wetlands, has been largely dismantled. This has benefited farmers and industrialists, but has weakened many ecosystems.
A strategy that goes against public opinion
A majority of Americans want more action to combat climate change. According to a Gallup poll conducted in June 2025, 62% believe that the government is not doing enough for the environment. This figure rises to 75% among young adults and residents of large cities. Even in some conservative states affected by climate disasters, opinion is changing rapidly. Giant fires, prolonged heat waves, and floods are raising awareness across the country. Trump, however, continues to take a hard line, hostile to any regulation perceived as an economic drag.
Large companies are not always following suit
Many American companies are maintaining their climate goals despite federal setbacks. Ford, GM, Amazon, and Microsoft are continuing their carbon reduction commitments under pressure from their customers and shareholders. The private sector is thus playing a growing role in national climate action. But without a strong federal framework, these initiatives remain uneven and non-binding. They cannot compensate for the lack of a coordinated and ambitious policy at the national level.
A decision of historic significance
Repealing the Endangerment Finding amounts to removing the cornerstone of all US climate regulation. If this repeal stands up to legal challenges, it will paralyze the EPA’s actions for several years. The United States risks seeing its emissions rise again, despite warnings from scientists. The IPCC is calling for global emissions to be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C. This trajectory becomes unattainable if the world’s largest economy refuses to play its part. Trump favors a productivist vision, indifferent to environmental limits and climate data. He is betting on the fossil fuel economy, at the cost of an ecological setback of historic proportions.
