The Washington Post published a report today stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has advised the Trump administration to repeal the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which classifies greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned federal emissions regulations for over a decade. The Post suggests that such a move, if enacted, would mark a significant shift in U.S. climate policy. The story relies on unnamed sources, leaving its claims unverified but noteworthy given the potential implications.

The Post article indicates that Trump administration officials are evaluating whether to reverse the endangerment finding, a determination first made under the Obama administration and later used by the Biden administration to impose limits on vehicle and power plant emissions. The report cites “three individuals briefed on the matter” who mention Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff and contributor to Project 2025, and Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department official, as advisors involved in the effort. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to assess the finding’s “legality and continuing applicability” within 30 days, with recommendations submitted to Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA has not released these recommendations, and spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment beyond confirming compliance with the order.

Because the Washington Post bases its account on three anonymous individuals rather than named officials or documented evidence. The absence of specific documentation or on-the-record statements from Gunasekara, Brightbill, or others named in the story leaves the report’s foundation uncertain, though not necessarily inaccurate.

The 2009 endangerment finding, upheld by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, has long been a target for critics of federal climate policy. During Trump’s first term, skeptics petitioned the EPA to repeal it, but the obstructionist bureaucrats at the agency stalled in opposition to Trump, finally, successfully, rejecting the petition on Trump’s last day in 2021, citing legal constraints. This time around the Trump administration has clearly learned from the past.

The current administration’s early actions, including the executive order, suggest a renewed interest in revisiting this issue. Figures like Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance and Myron Ebell of the American Lands Council, quoted by the Post, support the idea, arguing it could ease regulatory burdens and facilitate challenges to Biden-era rules.

Reversing the finding would face hurdles. Environmental attorney Sean Donahue, cited in the Post, contends that the scientific record supporting the endangerment determination—built over decades—would likely withstand legal challenges to a repeal. Previous court decisions have reinforced the EPA’s mandate, and any rollback could trigger litigation from environmental groups, but unlike Trump’s first term, Trump will have a DOJ that supports him in litigation.

If successful, repealing the endangerment finding would undermine the legal basis for many existing climate regulations, potentially affecting emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, and other sectors. Critics of the finding, including many contributors to this site, have long questioned its scientific grounding, pointing to massive uncertainties in climate models and historical data.

Without the finding, the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be sharply curtailed, shifting the policy landscape significantly.

The Post’s report, if confirmed, could reshape federal climate efforts. Its reliance on anonymous sources, however, warrants caution. The story’s plausibility is supported by the administration’s prior actions and the involvement of known policy advisors, yet the lack of concrete evidence—such as a leaked document or named official—keeps it in the realm of speculation for now. Observers should watch for further confirmation. Until then, this remains an intriguing but unproven claim.