logo
5 things to know about the Trump EPA's proposed repeal of the ‘endangerment finding'

5 things to know about the Trump EPA's proposed repeal of the ‘endangerment finding'

The Hill3 days ago
The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed to repeal a 2009 landmark finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public.
The 'endangerment finding' came after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) if it determines that they harm Americans' wellbeing.
But now, the EPA says it no longer believes that gases such as carbon dioxide harm the public.
Here are five things to know:
The finding determined that GHGs caused harm
In 2009, the Obama administration made two key determinations: that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane endangered public health and welfare, and that auto sector emissions played a part in that danger.
Now, the EPA is proposing to overturn that finding and instead determine that 'that there is insufficient reliable information to retain the conclusion that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines in the United States cause or contribute to endangerment to public health and welfare in the form of global climate change.'
It underpins automobile regulations
The move to repeal the endangerment finding is not simply symbolic. It was a legal finding that underpins climate regulations, and particularly those that pertain to cars and trucks.
The EPA's proposal on Tuesday also seeks to repeal the nation's car and truck regulations, meaning the agency is not requiring any set number of electric models on the market and that automakers' fleets can emit as much as they would like.
It said that the move will have cost savings, but it also expected to exacerbate climate change and other pollutants.
The regulation did not explicitly address climate regulations from other sectors, but the EPA has separately proposed to remove all climate regulations from power plants.
The move stands in contrast with evidence of climate harm
The push to repeal the endangerment finding stands in stark contrast to mounting evidence that climate change is already causing widespread, costly harm.
The EPA itself reports that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are heating the planet, leading to 'extreme events harm people, damage property, strain infrastructure, reduce crop yields, and more.' Before the Trump administration pulled it offline, the federal National Climate Assessment showed greenhouse gases causing both an accelerating pace of billion-plus dollar disasters and a more insidious onslaught of sickness caused by heat, smoke and migrating pathogens.
Though plants on land and sea absorb some of the planet-heating carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned, research shows emissions are now outpacing nature's ability to absorb them. In April, federal scientists reported that atmospheric CO2 rose faster last year than at any point in human history.
Meanwhile, each of the past 10 years has been the hottest ever recorded.
A hotter atmosphere is both thirstier and more volatile, fueling extreme weather — from flash droughts and floods to stronger hurricanes and firestorms.
Repairing that damage cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion last year alone. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned in February, rising flood, fire, and wind risks could make parts of the country uninsurable.
That meant, Powell said, that within as little as a decade 'there are going to be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage.'
Meanwhile, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to U.S. emissions, making up about 28 percent in 2022.
The change is likely to face court challenges
Environmental groups and others are likely to challenge the Trump administration's move. They say that courts should reject attempts to overturn the endangerment finding because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change poses a threat to the public.
It's not ultimately clear whether their efforts will be successful. And some experts worry that the move to overturn the endangerment finding and subsequent litigation could constrain a future Democratic administration from regulating altogether.
'I would imagine they will have a real problem with the D.C. circuits, you know, because they really are trying to defy a very clear D.C. circuit precedent,' Joe Goffman, who led the EPA's Air and Radiation Office under the Biden administration, told The Hill last week.
But he noted that if the case gets to the Supreme Court, it's not clear how it will rule.
'The Supreme Court has changed considerably since 2007,' Goffman said.
He added that he thinks the Trump administration is 'hoping to end up with is a reading of the Clean Air Act … that established certain tests that the agency has to make in order to establish its authority, tests that for all practical intents and purposes, a future agency won't be able to meet.'
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a frequent challenger of Trump administration actions, released a statement saying, 'This is a lawless, shameful gift to Big Oil, and we cannot let it stand.'
The shift is part of broader anti-climate effort by Trump
The repeal of the endangerment rule is part of a broader second-term Trump effort against climate action — which some senior officials now frame as a greater threat than climate change itself.
In its chapter on the EPA, the far-right Project 2025 plan calls for an 'update' to the 2009 finding on 'the perceived threat of climate change,' calling it 'a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ine!ective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs.'
A March EPA press release claimed the overhaul 'represents the death of the Green New Scam and drives a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.'
But the campaign goes far beyond EPA. The administration has pulled billions meant to help cities brace for extreme weather or rebuild stronger after disasters.
It has also repealed billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources and has sought to put up new hurdles for solar and wind power.
And it has launched a broad assault on federal climate research — from Pentagon studies on warming and conflict, to medical research on tropical disease spread, to NASA satellites that help farmers plan crops.
Meanwhile, the administration is ramping up U.S. oil and gas exports — including a deal to pressure Europe into buying nearly ten times more — while blocking rules to limit the release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from fracking.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble
Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble

Yahoo

time2 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Just two days after Fed Chair Jerome Powell refused to pre-commit to a September rate cut, the U.S. labor market did it for him. SPY ETF breaks past support. See real-time price here. A weak July jobs report and the biggest downward 2-month revisions since 2020 have economists—and markets—racing to President Donald Trump's side on calling for lower interest rates. Labor Data Breaks Down And Manufacturing Is Not Helping Either The U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs in July, far below the 110,000 expected. But the real shock came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revising May and June non-farm payrolls down by a combined 258,000—erasing what were thought to be solid job gains. This is the largest two-month revision since the COVID-19 shock in 2020. Trending: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it— Private-sector job growth was narrowly concentrated, driven largely by healthcare, while government payrolls fell by 10,000. The unemployment rate edged up to 4.2%, reversing June's drop. Wages, however, remained hot. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month and 3.9% year-over-year, both beating forecasts. Still, signs of underlying weakness in the labor force—especially due to declining immigration—are mounting. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturing continues to struggle, signaling ongoing headwinds from tariff-driven uncertainty. The ISM Manufacturing PMI decreased to 48 in July 2025, down from 49 in June and below the expected level of 49.5. It marked the fifth straight month of contraction and the lowest reading since October 2024. Wall Street Moves To The Dovish Side Markets are now fully pricing in two rate cuts by December, with the chance of a September 25-basis-point cut surging to 76% Friday, more than double Thursday's odds. Oxford Economics' Nancy Vanden Houten said the weak July report and historic revisions "raise the odds of a Fed rate cut in September." She warned that slower labor force growth, especially among foreign-born workers, may mask deeper structural issues."The foreign-born labor force has shrunk by 1.2 million in just six months," she said, linking the decline to the Trump administration's immigration policies. "Powell's take on September not being a live meeting might be under revision as we speak," said BOK Financial's analyst Steve Wyett, citing the sharp downward revisions. David Russell, analyst at TradeStation, indicated that "huge negative revisions undermine beliefs about the strength of the labor market," but warned that "there are still signs of stagflation, with hourly earnings up more than expected." Jamie Cox, managing partner for Harris Financial Group, weighed in. "Powell is going to regret holding rates steady this week. September is a lock for a rate cut—and it might even be 50 basis points." Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank, struck a more cautious tone. He said the weak July jobs report adds pressure on the Fed to cut rates later this year, but warned the decision "isn't a slam dunk." Adams said the Fed will closely watch the August jobs report and inflation data before making its next move. Yields on two-year Treasury bonds, which are highly sensitive to interest-rate expectations, tumbled 22 basis points to 3.75%, eyeing the largest intraday drop since August 2024. The U.S. dollar index – as closely tracked by the Invesco DB USD Index Bullish Fund ETF (NYSE:UUP) – fell 1.2% by 10:30 a.m. in New York, trimming weekly gains. Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Photo: Shutterstock This article Economists Flip To Trump's Side After Jobs Data–And Jerome Powell Is Now In Trouble originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers

New York Times

time4 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers

A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'

Should You Investigate Iress Limited (ASX:IRE) At AU$7.96?
Should You Investigate Iress Limited (ASX:IRE) At AU$7.96?

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Should You Investigate Iress Limited (ASX:IRE) At AU$7.96?

Iress Limited (ASX:IRE), is not the largest company out there, but it saw significant share price movement during recent months on the ASX, rising to highs of AU$8.66 and falling to the lows of AU$7.42. Some share price movements can give investors a better opportunity to enter into the stock, and potentially buy at a lower price. A question to answer is whether Iress' current trading price of AU$7.96 reflective of the actual value of the small-cap? Or is it currently undervalued, providing us with the opportunity to buy? Let's take a look at Iress's outlook and value based on the most recent financial data to see if there are any catalysts for a price change. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Is Iress Still Cheap? The stock seems fairly valued at the moment according to our valuation model. It's trading around 1.38% above our intrinsic value, which means if you buy Iress today, you'd be paying a relatively fair price for it. And if you believe that the stock is really worth A$7.85, there's only an insignificant downside when the price falls to its real value. So, is there another chance to buy low in the future? Given that Iress's share is fairly volatile (i.e. its price movements are magnified relative to the rest of the market) this could mean the price can sink lower, giving us an opportunity to buy later on. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for share price volatility. View our latest analysis for Iress Can we expect growth from Iress? Future outlook is an important aspect when you're looking at buying a stock, especially if you are an investor looking for growth in your portfolio. Although value investors would argue that it's the intrinsic value relative to the price that matter the most, a more compelling investment thesis would be high growth potential at a cheap price. However, with a negative profit growth of -11% expected over the next couple of years, near-term growth certainly doesn't appear to be a driver for a buy decision for Iress. This certainty tips the risk-return scale towards higher risk. What This Means For You Are you a shareholder? Currently, IRE appears to be trading around its fair value, but given the uncertainty from negative returns in the future, this could be the right time to reduce the risk in your portfolio. Is your current exposure to the stock optimal for your total portfolio? And is the opportunity cost of holding a negative-outlook stock too high? Before you make a decision on the stock, take a look at whether its fundamentals have changed. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping an eye on IRE for a while, now may not be the most advantageous time to buy, given it is trading around its fair value. The stock appears to be trading at fair value, which means there's less benefit from mispricing. In addition to this, the negative growth outlook increases the risk of holding the stock. However, there are also other important factors we haven't considered today, which can help crystalize your views on IRE should the price fluctuate below its true value. If you want to dive deeper into Iress, you'd also look into what risks it is currently facing. Case in point: We've spotted 1 warning sign for Iress you should be aware of. If you are no longer interested in Iress, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store