Trump’s Repeal of Endangerment Finding Will Make Life More Affordable for Everyone
Jenny Beth Martin /
President Donald Trump—determined to tackle America’s high cost of living left to him by Joe Biden—last Thursday stood up to the Washington Swamp and took an action that will save Americans more than a trillion dollars in the coming years.
After almost a year of review, he and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” a regulatory burden that for almost two decades has driven up prices across the board all over the country.
In 2009, unelected bureaucrats inside the EPA (read: the Washington Swamp) made a decision that has shaped American energy policy—and increased the cost of living—ever since. Their Endangerment Finding declared that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide “endanger public health and welfare.”
The finding became the legal foundation for sweeping federal regulation of everything from power plants to automobiles, and from oil refineries to natural gas pipelines.
With that sweeping regulation came higher prices for everything from new cars and trucks to major appliances, like dishwashers, washers and dryers, ovens, and refrigerators, along with fuel and energy.
Trump called his decision to repeal the finding “the single largest deregulatory action in American history.”
He’s right. This decision marks a turning point in the fight to revive American prosperity and make American life more affordable, at the same time as it restores constitutional government.
The Washington Swamp was not at all happy.
To understand the significance of this moment, Americans must first understand what the Endangerment Finding did.
After the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA was required to determine whether greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutants.” In 2009, the Obama-era EPA answered yes—and in doing so unlocked broad regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
That finding became the legal foundation for rules targeting coal plants, natural gas facilities, automobile emissions standards, and methane regulations. For example, the so-called Clean Power Plan and subsequent greenhouse gas standards for vehicles relied on the Endangerment Finding as legal justification. It extended regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act, a statute enacted in 1970.
The consequences have been significant.
The Endangerment Finding empowered regulators to expand federal oversight of the energy sector. It introduced new compliance obligations for utilities and manufacturers. It coincided with the retirement of numerous coal-fired power plants across the United States.
Automobile manufacturers made the decision to design and build their fleets to satisfy bureaucrats in Washington, not the market.
So, they reconfigured their inventories to meet what they believed was the “demand” from Washington (read: the EPA), rather than the actual demand from the market. Then they found that even with massive taxpayer subsidies, they had a hard time making money selling EVs to a public that just didn’t seem to want to buy the cars.
Consequently, American auto manufacturers have taken a $50 billion hit on their electric vehicle sales.
In Thursday’s White House event, Zeldin went further—he put a price tag on the savings that will be enjoyed by American consumers who no longer have to live life under the Endangerment Finding regime.
A fact sheet from the EPA says of the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, “The action will result in over $1.3 trillion in savings from 2027 through 2055,” and says $1.1 trillion of that is “from the reduced costs for new vehicles,” while the remaining $200 billion in savings come from “the avoided costs of purchasing electric vehicle (EV) chargers and related equipment.”
Just as important as the economic savings and opportunities for economic growth afforded by the repeal is the fact that the move is a turn back to the Constitution and the rule of law.
Congress never enacted a comprehensive climate statute authorizing such transformative policies.
In fact, prior to the EPA’s December 2009 announcement of the Endangerment Finding, Congress had tried—and failed—to do just that: President Barack Obama’s “Cap and Trade” plan passed the House in June 2009, but never passed the Senate. Instead, realizing that the people’s elected representatives could not come to an agreement on legislation codifying a new policy, an executive branch agency made the decision on its own to interpret decades-old statutory language to justify far-reaching regulatory authority—without congressional authorization to do so.
It was a case of the Washington Swamp doing what it does best—that is, whatever it wants, irrespective of the law or the Constitution.
By reversing the Endangerment Finding, Trump reaffirms a basic constitutional principle: major policy decisions of vast economic and political significance must come from the people’s elected representatives, not from unelected bureaucrats.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed this fundamental principle in West Virginia v. EPA, the 2022 case that relied on the so-called major questions doctrine, which requires specific congressional authorization for major environmental regulations.
Agencies exist to execute the law, not to create it. Returning such consequential questions to Congress honors the separation of powers and ensures democratic accountability.
If climate policy is to be remade, it should be debated openly, voted on by lawmakers, and enacted through legislation—not imposed through regulatory interpretation by unelected officials.
Trump and Zeldin took a giant step toward making life more affordable and opened the gate for substantial economic growth at the same time as they moved toward restoring the kind of limited constitutional government the Founders envisioned.
All Americans will benefit—and all Americans should be grateful that Trump has the courage to stand up to the Washington Swamp to fight for the American people.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.