On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded its greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles and its 2009 Endangerment Finding — the determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and the legal basis for regulating them under the Clean Air Act. This action, largely unwanted by industry and contradicted by science and law, is central to the Trump administration’s effort to eliminate the federal government’s role in addressing climate change. Despite the Clean Air Act’s success in driving emission reductions from vehicles, power plants, and oil and natural gas facilities over the past 16 years, EPA intends to prohibit future administrations from using it.
Climate science – what changed from the proposal?
Although the rescission states that the EPA Administrator “continues to harbor concerns regarding the scientific analysis” in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA does not rely on or evaluate the science to justify its repeal of the 2009 science-based finding.
EPA’s August 2025 proposal relied on a report prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE) by five scientists with fringe views. Based on that report, EPA asserted that many underlying assumptions in 2009 were “unduly pessimistic,” that the 2009 analysis failed to account for the positive impacts of climate change, and that there are significant uncertainties in predicted warming rates and their effects.
Climate scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, strongly disputed those conclusions in robust comments. These experts affirmed that the 2009 Endangerment Finding remained scientifically sound and was bolstered by even stronger evidence accumulated over the past 17 years. Additionally, a federal court determined that the Trump administration violated federal law when it formed the group of scientists that prepared the report.
Given the strong scientific opposition and the court’s decision discrediting the DOE process, EPA likely determined that any reliance on its proposed assertions regarding climate science would be legally vulnerable.
Continue reading on the Salata Institute blog.
