
In February 2026, the Trump administration systematically dismantled key environmental protections, beginning with the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding that authorized federal regulation of greenhouse gases. This deregulatory push expanded to include loosening toxic emission standards for coal plants, triggering immediate legal challenges from health and environmental groups. The timeline reveals a coordinated effort to reshape U.S. climate and energy policy while opponents mobilized court challenges.
9 events · 9 days · 24 source articles
The Environmental Protection Agency began the process of repealing the endangerment finding, which since 2009 has allowed the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Experts predicted this would create significant uncertainty for businesses and trigger protracted legal battles over the administration's authority to reverse established scientific determinations.
President Trump formally rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding at a White House event, calling it a 'giant scam' with 'no basis in fact' or law. The president justified the action as necessary to boost the auto industry and enable production of cheaper gas-powered vehicles, dismissing concerns about the climate and health impacts. The White House described it as the 'largest deregulatory action in American history.'
Environmental advocates and public health experts warned that repealing the endangerment finding would exacerbate climate change effects on vulnerable communities and reverse progress toward environmental justice. The repeal eliminated the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions that threaten public health and welfare.
A coalition of more than a dozen health and environmental organizations, including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenged both the repeal of the endangerment finding and the elimination of all climate rules for motor vehicles, arguing the administration's actions were illegal and would result in 'thousands of avoidable deaths.'
Environmental groups accused the EPA of abandoning its core mission to protect public health by repealing a finding that had served as the basis for federal climate regulations for 17 years. The lawsuit emphasized that the 2009 endangerment finding resulted from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration expanded its deregulatory agenda by revoking portions of Biden-era Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) that restricted releases of mercury, lead, and arsenic from coal-fired power plants. This move particularly affected about 10 lignite-burning plants in North Dakota and Texas, allowing them to emit mercury at rates more than three times higher than other coal plants.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of tightened mercury standards at a massive coal plant in Louisville, Kentucky, stating the action would 'rights the wrongs of the last administration.' The timing coincided with increased electricity demand from AI data center buildout, even as public health advocates warned that mercury emissions harm children's brain development and contribute to heart attacks in adults.
Domestic energy advocacy groups praised the rollback, with Power the Future and other pro-industry organizations arguing that Biden-era regulations sought to 'regulate out of existence' the coal sector. EPA Administrator Zeldin emphasized that protecting the environment and supporting industry was not a 'binary choice' and that the changes would ensure both public health and the health of America's coal industry.
As the lawsuit moved forward, legal experts began analyzing whether the repeal would survive court challenges. Questions centered on the Clean Air Act's requirements and whether the administration had authority to reverse scientific findings. The case set up a potential Supreme Court battle over the scope of EPA's regulatory authority and the role of science in environmental policy.