&w=3840&q=100)
Trump plans to rescind scientific finding that allows US fund fight against climate change threats: Report
Legal foundation of climate policy targeted
As reported by The New York Times, two individuals familiar with the draft explained that the EPA intends to roll back the finding without directly challenging the scientific consensus that emissions from fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Instead, the administration reportedly plans to argue that the EPA exceeded its legal authority when it issued a sweeping declaration under the Clean Air Act.
The endangerment finding, developed during the Obama administration in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provided the legal basis for federal rules limiting emissions from vehicles, power plants and industrial sources. If repealed, the decision would not only nullify existing environmental protections but also prevent future administrations from reinstating similar measures without starting over legally and scientifically.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Tailpipe emission rules also in crosshairs
The draft rule also includes a proposal to revoke federal limits on vehicle emissions that were designed to speed up the transition to electric cars. The transportation sector is currently the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The EPA is expected to argue that such regulations, based on the endangerment finding, cause harm to consumers by limiting vehicle choice and increasing prices rather than improving public health.
Reports described the EPA's framing as an economic one—suggesting that federal efforts to reduce carbon emissions come at too great a financial cost. Administrator Lee Zeldin, in earlier remarks reported by The Washington Post, emphasised the need to balance environmental goals with energy security and economic freedom, framing the review of the endangerment finding as part of the administration's broader deregulatory agenda.
Environmental and legal experts cited by both newspapers have expressed deep concern over the proposed rollback. The New York Times noted that critics see this move as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's Massachusetts vs EPA decision, which concluded that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Legal analysts told The Washington Post that any attempt to withdraw the endangerment finding could unravel the EPA's authority to act on climate altogether. Some believe the rule is unlikely to survive in court but warn that even temporary setbacks could paralyse climate action.
Political motives?
Behind the scenes, the proposal appears to have been shaped by former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, according to The Washington Post. Clark, who was involved in legal opposition to greenhouse gas regulations during the Bush administration, is believed to be a principal architect of the repeal. His past criticisms of the endangerment finding, especially its alleged failure to weigh economic consequences, have reportedly informed the draft rule's legal strategy.
Instead of contesting climate science outright, the rule reportedly focusses on legal technicalities—arguing that the EPA's authority should be limited to addressing specific pollutants in narrowly defined contexts. This approach is designed to bypass the robust scientific basis of the original finding while aiming to avoid direct confrontation with the broader consensus on climate change.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A coordinated deregulatory effort
The attempt to repeal the endangerment finding is one of many efforts by the Trump administration to reverse environmental protections. As The New York Times reported, the administration has already rolled back rules targeting emissions from fossil fuels, discouraged electric vehicle development and withdrawn the US from international climate commitments.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defence Council, speaking to The Washington Post, was one of several legal experts who characterised the move as a strategy to weaken the Clean Air Act by denying the well-documented risks of climate pollution. Others noted that this rule could become the centrepiece of the administration's climate legacy—one that seeks to neutralise not just current regulations, but future ones as well.
While the draft rule has not yet been formally released, the EPA was submitted to the White House for review on June 30. Once published, it will undergo a period of public comment, and potentially litigation, before becoming final. The outcome of this regulatory shift could have lasting consequences not only for current efforts to reduce emissions but also for America's long-term ability to respond to the growing climate crisis.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
DNA Test Of US President Trump Tariff Bulling
In a move that's sparked diplomatic concern, US President Donald Trump announced a unilateral 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods. A decision that coincided with the historic launch of the NISAR satellite, jointly developed by ISRO and NASA. While space collaboration between India and the US soared to new heights, Trump launched what many are calling a "tariff strike" on one of America's key allies. Dubbed "Mr. 25 Per cent," Trump claimed the tariffs were a response to India's high duties on American products, its continued defence deals with Russia, and its oil trade with Moscow. India, purchasing over 35 per cent of its crude oil from Russia at prices up to $25 cheaper per barrel, has prioritised national interest over external pressure. With long-term rupee-ruble agreements, India saves significantly on foreign reserves and fuel subsidies. Today's DNA analysed US President Trump tariff bulling. Watch Today's Full Episode: DNA में आज की बड़ी खबरें भारत-रूस की दोस्ती..ट्रंप से नहीं देखी गई? एनकाउंटर में 'सावन का सोमवार' दिखता है? सदी का सबसे बड़ा भूकंप..क्या बचा, क्या मिटा? WATCH DNA LIVE : #USTariff #DonaldTrump @pratyushkkhare — Zee News (@ZeeNews) July 30, 2025 The defense angle is just as critical. India has bought $45 billion worth of defense equipment from Russia, compared to $22 billion from the U.S. Despite this, India also imports from France and other countries, showcasing strategic autonomy in defense procurement. Trump's tariff targets, interestingly, align with BRICS nations, including 30 per cent on China and South Africa, 50 per cent on Brazil, and now 25 per cent on India. Analysts suggest that India's rising influence in BRICS and its independent foreign policy irked Trump. India exports heavily to the US in sectors like pharmaceuticals, textiles, agriculture, and jewellery, and all are likely to be impacted. On the import side, civil aircraft, medical devices, and electronics from the US will become more expensive. However, experts believe this tariff may be more of a negotiation tactic. Trump has previously rolled back tariffs post-pressure. With ongoing talks and India exploring new markets like the UK and BRICS, a potential US-India trade compromise still remains on the table.


Deccan Herald
9 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Trump's tariff on India major setback in bilateral relations, say experts
Trump on Wednesday announced imposing a 25 per cent tariff on all goods coming from India starting August 1, plus an unspecified penalty for buying Russian crude oil and military equipment.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Federal Reserve leaves interest rates unchanged even as Trump demands cuts
The Federal Reserve left its key short-term interest rate unchanged for the fifth time this year, brushing off repeated calls from President Donald Trump for a cut. The Fed's decision Wednesday leaves its key short-term rate at about 4.3 per cent, where it has stood after the central bank reduced it three times last year. Chair Jerome Powell has said the Fed would likely have cut rates already if not for Trump's sweeping tariffs. Powell and other Fed officials say they want to see how Trump's duties on imports will impact inflation and the broader economy. So far the duties have lifted costs of some goods, such as appliances, furniture, and toys, and overall inflation has risen a bit, though less than many economists had expected. There were some signs of splits in the Fed's ranks: Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman voted to reduce borrowing costs, while 9 officials, including Powell, favoured standing pat. It is the first time in more than three decades that two of the seven Washington-based governors have dissented. One official, Governor Adriana Kugler, was absent and didn't vote. The choice to hold off on a rate cut will almost certainly result in further conflict between the Fed and White House, as Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank reduce borrowing costs as part of his effort to assert control over one of the few remaining independent federal agencies.