Trump EPA will propose repealing finding that climate change endangers public health
'EPA has sent to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding from the Obama EPA,' Zeldin told Newsmax.
'Through the endangerment finding, there has been into the trillions worth of regulations, including tailpipe emissions and including electric vehicle mandates,' he added.
In 2009, then-President Obama's administration made a formal determination that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane posed a threat to public health. It found emissions from vehicles contributed to the problem.
The finding provided a legal basis for EPA regulations on these planet-heating gases, including for its rules requiring automakers' to cut emissions from their vehicle fleets.
While these rules did not explicitly mandate a pivot to electric vehicles, standards issued by the Biden administration were expected to push the vehicle market toward more electric cars in the years ahead.
The EPA's plans to propose a rule to repeal the finding were first reported by The New York Times.
The Trump administration's move comes despite a consensus from the scientific community that human activity, especially its use of fossil fuels, is heating up the planet. This heating in turn exacerbates extreme weather.
During President Trump's first term, his administration weakened limits on planet-warming emissions, including from vehicles, but it did not repeal the endangerment finding.
The proposal to repeal it signals an escalation that could prevent the agency from having climate regulations on the books at all.
Zealan Hoover, who served as a senior EPA advisor during the Biden administration said it is 'insane' to say that climate change doesn't impact U.S. health and welfare.
'We are right back to full-throated climate denialism of the early 2000s,' Hoover said.
'Climate change impacts public health because it changes the Earth's climate patterns in ways that are beyond both what the human body and our built systems, evolved to have been designed to adapt [to], so that looks like extreme heat, which can cause heat stress and death…. it leads to sea level rise, which you know is makes for more damaging storm surges and even flooding on, non-storm days,' he added.
President Trump has repeatedly denied the existence of climate change, sought to downplay its impacts, repeal regulations meant to combat the problem and defund efforts to research and mitigate it.
The EPA's 2009 endangerment finding came after a 2007 Supreme Court case which said that the agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and that the agency should decide whether they imperil public health.
The Trump administration had previously signaled that it could repeal the finding.
During his confirmation hearing, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin declined to say whether he believed the EPA had a responsibility to regulate climate change.
In March, the agency said it would reconsider the finding without saying what the outcome of that reconsideration would be.
The move also echoes a similar proposal from the agency to determine that powerplants' planet-warming emissions 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution' and therefore should not be regulated.
The EPA appears to be preparing a proposal rather than a final decision, meaning the formal revocation of the endangerment finding could be months or even years away.
Updated at 6:36 p.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. city leaders are in high-stakes negotiations on Olympics costs
Los Angeles city leaders are at a critical juncture ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics, with potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake. They are in negotiations with LA28, the private committee overseeing the Games, for the use of the city's police, traffic officers and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics. Millions of visitors are expected to pour into downtown L.A., the Sepulveda Basin and the Westside when the Olympics kick off in July 2028. Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day event and the two-week Paralympics the following month. Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on 'enhanced services' — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes. LA28 has billed the Games as a 'no cost' event for the city. Depending on how 'enhanced services' are defined, the city, which is in a precarious financial state, could end up bearing significant costs. One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working together to keep athletes and spectators safe. Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring. The city continues to face rising labor costs and diminished revenues from tourism. At the same time, President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, recently passed by Congress, includes $1 billion for security and planning of the Games. But what those funds will cover — and what will be covered by LA28 — are not yet known. Against that backdrop, civil rights attorney Connie Rice sent a six-page letter dated July 17 to Mayor Karen Bass and other city leaders, asking questions about the enhanced services agreement and urging the city to take a tough stance. Rice said city staffers reached out to her because they were worried that the agreement wouldn't adequately protect the city. 'Los Angeles faces multiple fiscal hazards that many current leaders negotiating this and other Olympics agreements, will not be around to face,' Rice wrote. 'The City cannot afford an additional $1.5 billion hit in 2028 because city officials inadequately protected taxpayers in 2025.' Rice's letter asks if LA28 and the city have resolved differences about the definition of venue 'footprints,' or perimeters around sporting events, with the footprint changing depending on whether it's defined by a blast radius, a security perimeter or other factors. The letter questioned why LA28 isn't paying the city up front for costs, using money in escrow, and asked if LA28 has provided the city with a budget for security, transit and sanitation. Rice, in an interview, said she wants to ensure the Games are indeed 'no cost.' Both Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass' major events office, and an LA28 representative declined to directly address Rice's letter. 'The City and LA28 have been collaborating for years to ensure that all Angelenos benefit from the Games for decades to come,' said Krekorian. 'While the [agreement] is currently under negotiation, we fully expect that LA28 will be successful in its fundraising efforts to deliver the Games.' The city routinely provides police officers and traffic officers for major events, such as Dodgers games and the Grammy Awards. In 2022, the Rams reimbursed the city $1.5 million for resources it provided for the team's Super Bowl parade, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo. Last month, Szabo's office released a document on the city's investor website outlining potential liabilities facing the city, including some related to the 2028 Games. The document noted that roughly $1 billion in security costs will have to be paid by the city if they are not covered by LA28 or the federal government. Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28's vice president of communications, told The Times that security and other planning costs haven't been finalized. Rice's letter questioned whether LA28 would cover the cost of security. Prieto Lopez didn't directly answer when asked by The Times if LA28 will cover the LAPD's expenses. 'We are grateful that the Administration and Congress recently appropriated $1 billion in security funding and we will continue to work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels, including the City of LA, to ensure a safe, secure and successful Games,' Prieto Lopez said in an email. How the $1 billion from the Big Beautiful Bill is distributed will be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is focused on preventing terrorism and other threats. Anita Gore, a spokesperson for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, told The Times that she expects those funds to be managed by the state through the Homeland Security Grant process. The Office of Emergency Services is the 'coordination hub' for the Games and is overseeing a statewide task force focused on security, traffic management and more, Gore said. At a recent hearing in Sacramento, LA28 Chief Executive Reynold Hoover said the nonprofit continues to push for federal support for the Games. He said the $1 billion recently approved by Congress will 'help us with that initial funding requirements for security.' Hoover told a Senate subcommittee in June that LA28 is asking the federal government to fully reimburse the public agencies that will provide critical security at the Games. A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about how the $1 billion will be used. Trump's mercurial nature and past attacks on California make it difficult for some city leaders to gauge how his administration will handle funding for the Games. Rep. Nellie Pou of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Congressional Task Force for Enhancing Security for Special Events, held a public hearing last month on preparing for the World Cup and Olympics. She told The Times that she has not received any specifics about the $1 billion. 'This administration has withheld and frozen other federal funding appropriated by Congress, so we cannot simply assume that World Cup or Olympic security funding will make it to our communities,' she said. Krekorian, when asked about Pou's concerns, said the city 'is in direct communication with state and federal partners, as well as LA28, about the allocation of these funds.'
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ivy League universities paid hundreds of millions to settle with Trump. Is UCLA next?
University of California leaders face a difficult choice after the U.S. Department of Justice said this week that UCLA had violated the civil rights of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests and federal agencies on Wednesday suspended more than $300 million in research grants to the school. Do they agree to a costly settlement, potentially incurring the anger of taxpayers, politicians and campus communities in a deep-blue state that's largely opposed to President Trump and his battle to remake higher education? Or do they go to court, entering a protracted legal fight and possibly inviting further debilitating federal actions against the nation's premier public university system, which has until now carefully avoided head-on conflicts with the White House? Leaders of the University of California, including its systemwide president, James B. Milliken; UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC's 24-member Board of Regents — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is an ex-officio member — have just days to decide. In findings issued Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the Justice Department said UCLA would pay a 'heavy price' for acting with 'deliberate indifference' to the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who complained of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, 2023. That's when Hamas attacked Israel, which led to Israel's war in Gaza and the pro-Palestinian student encampment on Royce Quad. The Justice Department gave UC — which oversees federal legal matters for UCLA and nine other campuses — a week to respond to the allegations of antisemitism. It wrote that 'unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement' to 'ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence,' the department would sue by Sept. 2. A day after the Justice Department disclosed its findings, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other federal agencies said they were suspending hundreds of grants to UCLA researchers. A letter from the NSF cited the university's alleged 'discrimination' in admissions and failure to 'promote a research environment free of antisemitism.' A Department of Energy letter cutting off grants on clean energy and nuclear power plants made similar accusations, adding that 'UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women's sports and private women-only spaces.' Initial data shared with The Times on Thursday night showed the cuts to be at least $200 million. On Friday, additional information shared by UC and federal officials pointed to the number being greater than $300 million — more than a quarter of UCLA's $1.1 billion in annual federal funding and contracts. UCLA has not released a total number. In a campuswide message Thursday, Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, called the government's moves 'deeply disappointing.' 'This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,' Frenk said. In a statement to The Times Friday, an official from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, said it would 'not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.' An NSF spokesperson also confirmed the UCLA cuts, saying Friday that the university is no longer in 'alignment with current NSF priorities.' A Department of Energy spokesperson also verified the cuts but did not elaborate outside of pointing to the department's letter to UCLA. The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former senior UC leaders in addition to higher education experts about the rapid deliberations taking place this week, which for the first time have drawn a major public university system into the orbit of a White House that has largely focused its ire on Ivy League schools. Trump has accused universities of being too liberal, illegally recruiting for diversity in ways that hurt white and Asian American students and faculty, and being overly tolerant of pro-Palestinian students who he labels as antisemites aligned with Hamas. Universities, including UCLA, have largely denied the accusations, although school officials have admitted that they under-delivered in responding to Jewish student concerns. In the last two years, encampments took over small portions of campuses, and, as a result, were blamed for denying campus access to pro-Israel Jews. In a major payout announced Tuesday — before the Justice Department's findings — UCLA said it would dole out $6.45 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor who alleged the university violated their civil rights and enabled antisemitism during the pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight groups that work with Jewish communities, including the Anti-Defamation League, Chabad and Hillel. Another $320,000 will be directed to a UCLA initiative to combat antisemitism, and the rest of the funds will go toward legal fees. Through spokespersons, Frenk and Milliken declined interviews on what next steps UCLA might take. Friday was Milliken's first day on the job after the long-planned departure of former UC President Michael V. Drake, who will return to teaching and research. But in public remarks this week, Newsom said he was 'reviewing' the Justice Department's findings and that UC would be 'responsive.' The governor, who spoke during an event at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County on Thursday, said he had a meeting with Drake scheduled that day to discuss the Trump administration's charges. Newsom did not respond specifically to a question from The Times about whether UC would settle with Trump. 'We're reviewing the details of the DOJ's latest and then that deadline on Tuesday,' the governor said. 'So we'll be responsive.' In a statement Friday, Newsom said, 'Freezing critical research funding for UCLA — dollars that were going to study invasive diseases, cure cancer, and build new defense technologies — makes our country less safe. It is a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students' real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.' Senior UCLA and UC leaders, who spoke on background because they were not authorized to discuss legal decisions, said the university has been bracing for this moment for months. The university and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, and civil rights complaints from Jewish students. At the same time, leaders said, they were hoping the multimillion-dollar settlement with Jewish students would buy them time. 'It backfired,' said one senior administrator at UCLA, reflecting the sense of whiplash felt among many who were interviewed. 'Within hours of announcing our settlement, the DOJ was on our back.' Other senior UC officials said the system was considering suing Trump. It has already sued various federal agencies or filed briefs in support of lawsuits over widespread grant cuts affecting all major U.S. universities. UC itself, however, has not directly challenged the president's platform of aggressively punishing elite schools for alleged discrimination. It's unclear if a suit or settlement could wipe out all remaining investigations. Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, said he felt the Trump administration was targeting a public university as a way to 'make a statement' about the president's higher education aims going beyond Ivy League institutions. 'But this is not Columbia,' Yudof said, referring to the $221-million settlement the New York campus recently reached with the White House to resolve investigations over alleged antisemitism amid its response to pro-Palestinian protests. On Wednesday, Brown University also came to a $50-million agreement with the White House. The Brown payment will go toward Rhode Island workforce development programs. Harvard is also negotiating a deal with the government over similar accusations regarding antisemitism. 'The University of California is much more complex,' said Yudof, who lives in Florida and also led the University of Texas and University of Minnesota. 'For one, an issue that may affect UCLA is not going to affect UC Merced or UC Riverside. But do you come to an agreement on all campuses? If there is a settlement payment, does it affect all campuses, depending on the cost?' George Blumenthal, a former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, said he 'just can't see UC making the kind of deal that Columbia did or that Harvard contemplates. Committing public funds to Washington to the tune of tens or hundreds of million dollars strikes me as politically untenable in California.' Pro-Palestinian UCLA groups said they don't agree with the premise of negotiations. They point out that many protesters in last year's encampment were Jewish and argue that the protest — the focus of federal complaints — was not antisemitic. 'We reject this cynical weaponization of antisemitism, and the misinformation campaign spinning calls for Palestinian freedom as antisemitic. We must name this for what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt to punish supporters of Palestinian freedom, and to advance the long-standing conservative goal of dismantling higher education,' said a statement from Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, on behalf of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine. Higher education experts say UC's decision would set a national precedent. The university's finances include more than $50 billion in operating revenues, $180 billion in investments — including endowment, retirement, and working capital portfolios — and smaller campus-level endowments. The funds support facilities across the state, including multiple academic health centers, investment properties and campuses, as well as tens of thousands of former employees enrolled in retirement plans. Dozens of public campuses across the U.S. are under investigation or pressure from the White House to atone for alleged wrongdoing to Jewish students or to change admissions, scholarship programs and protest rules and more. But UC has long been a standard-bearer, including in academic and protest freedoms. 'If you are Trump, your target of Harvard or Brown is much easier — a snooty elite — than a public, even a UCLA or Berkeley,' said Rick Hess, an education expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Kenneth Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department during Trump's first term, said there would be benefits for UCLA and the UC system to enter into a 'systemwide agreement that would enable everybody to put this behind themselves.' The Justice Department's Tuesday letter said it was investigating all campuses but only issuing findings of violations so far at UCLA. Marcus, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said a systemwide agreement would 'provide the federal government with assurances that the regents are making changes across the board.' Staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Indian businesses in SoCal brace for 25% tariff hike: ‘More expensive to do business day by day'
A jar of pickled mango, a popular Indian condiment, costs $2.99 at Pioneer Cash & Carry in Artesia. But that price won't hold for long. The grocery store, nestled in the heart of Artesia's Little India, has to raise prices to keep up with its rising costs in light of President Trump's trade policy with India. Beginning Friday, there will be a 25% tariff on Indian goods. Because the two nations could not reach an agreement before Trump's deadline, the president signed an executive order Thursday night authorizing the tariffs for goods from India and several other countries to start in seven days. Several businesses that rely on imported Indian goods in the Los Angeles area told The Times they would have to raise prices to maintain operations with the steep tariff. Business owners expressed anxiety over not knowing what the next couple of weeks or months will look like for their bottom lines. Devraj Keray, the owner of Pioneer Cash & Carry, said some vendors already notified him that prices will go up 25% effective Monday. The business, which is one of the largest Indian grocery stores in California, will have to raise prices on imported Indian products. 'We'll have to pass that on to the consumer,' he said. 'There's not really any way around that.' The grocery store, which has two locations in Artesia, has been owned and operated by family since 1982. Keray said he anticipates customers will buy less, but they'll still need basic grocery items. 'People will cut back, so we'll feel a bit of a pinch,' he said. 'It's getting more and more expensive to do business day by day. It's not going to be easy for the smaller guys.' Artesia's Little India area is a cultural hub for the community, and it's one of the largest Indian enclaves in Southern California. Artesia City Councilmember Zeel Ahir said the strip of businesses along Pioneer Boulevard is the 'heart and soul' of the area for Indians. 'It provides a sense of warmth and a homely feeling to know that the goods that were available in India for some immigrants are available here as well,' said Ahir, who has lived in the area for all her life. India 'is our friend,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform announcing the taxes, but its tariffs on U.S. products 'are far too high.' Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on Indian goods on Wednesday came after a universal baseline tariff of 10% on imports from all foreign countries has already been in place for months. Indian goods exports to the U.S. totaled more than $87 billion in 2024, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The trade deficit with India was $45.7 billion last year, up more than 5% from 2023. Pharmaceuticals, jewelry, textiles, spices and food products are among the common imports. The Trump administration maintains that tariffs will 'strengthen the international economic position' of the United States and protect American workers. In addition to the 25% tariff on its products exported to the U.S., India is also facing an unspecified penalty for buying Russian oil. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Thursday. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' Negotiations between the two countries continue, but local businesses are still scrambling to cope with the change in operations. Beyond Artesia, which is in southeast Los Angeles County, the city of Los Angeles has several Indian grocery stores, apparel stores and other businesses that depend on Indian imports. Dalbir Singh Ghotra, the owner of Kavita Grocery in the Palms neighborhood, said the tariff would 'spell disaster for small businesses like us.' After running the grocery store for the past three decades and keeping doors open through tough economic periods, Ghotra said he's already seen sales drop recently as customers have tightened their belts amid growing economic uncertainty. Just down the road at Bollywood Styles, a clothing and accessory store, owner Sneh Prasad said recent sales have dipped to the lowest levels she's recorded in roughly 18 years, she said. With the vast majority of her inventory imported from India, Prasad is concerned about what lies ahead. 'Businesses have already become harder for mom-and-pop stores like us,' she said. 'If the import prices go up, I do not know how we will survive since sales may fall drastically.' Many business owners said they have already seen foot traffic and sales slow down this summer. Some believe the downturn could be because customers are afraid of possible immigration raids targeting businesses that attract primarily immigrant customers. 'Ninety-nine percent of our customer base is Asian, from the Indian subcontinent, and [some] are not sure if they would even be able to live here,' said Krutika Pranav, the manager at Highglow Jewelers in Artesia. 'All of that adds to the fear, and we've seen a tremendous slowdown because of that. The tariffs will make it even worse.' Prashant 'Peter' Patel, the president of the Indian American Business Assn. and Chamber, which is based in Florida but has ties to small businesses across the country, said Indian business leaders have a general sense of anxiety. He remains hopeful that the two countries' leaders will reach a resolution soon. 'This is the time for diplomacy and pragmatism,' he said. 'Our goal is not to politicize this issue, but to represent the voice of those working hard every day to grow businesses that serve, employ and uplift communities.' Others were not as optimistic. 'It's like a chess game, to see who makes the first move,' said Keray, the owner of Pioneer Cash & Carry. 'It's just a matter of how far it goes before the consumer is the one that becomes a victim of all this.'
