The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
The EPA intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on car-makers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the Administration’s plan.
They asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorised to discuss the draft proposal.
The draft could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year.
Molly Vaseliou, a spokesperson for the EPA, did not confirm the details of the plan.
In a statement she said the EPA sent the draft proposal to the White House on June 30, and that it “will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the administrator”.
If the Trump Administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants, and other sources.
It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications.
“The White House is trying to turn back the clock and re-litigate both the science and the law,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defence Fund, an environmental group.
She called the evidence that climate change is harmful “overwhelming and incontrovertible”.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has abandoned US efforts to tackle global warming.
He also has moved to roll back virtually every federal policy aimed at curbing greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal.
His Administration has encouraged more production and use of fossil fuels while stifling the growth of clean energy and electric vehicles.
In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft EPA rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren’t warming the planet.
Instead, it argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare. It makes the case that the EPA administrator has limited power that apply only to specific circumstances.
Joseph Goffman, who led the air office at the EPA under the Biden Administration, said the rule would all but certainly face legal challenges if it is finalised.
He said the Trump Administration’s proposed rule conflicts with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs EPA, a landmark case that found for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
That led the EPA to make the finding in 2009 that said that six greenhouse gases were harming public health.
In more than 200 pages, the EPA at that time outlined the science and detailed how increasingly severe heatwaves, storms and droughts were expected to contribute to higher rates of death and disease.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Lisa Friedman
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
