EDF and Partners Vigorously Oppose Trump Administration Attacks on Endangerment Finding and Clean Car Standards

(WASHINGTON - September 23, 2025)Environmental Defense Fund this week filed comments strongly opposing U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's proposed repeals of the foundational scientific finding that climate-altering pollution endangers people's health and every federal standard limiting those pollutants from cars and trucks.

EDF also jointly filed two sets of comprehensive comments with over a dozen other public health and environmental groups: one focused on EPA's proposed repeal of the Endangerment Finding and the other focused on its proposed repeal of vehicle emissions standards.

"EPA grasps at straws to explain away its statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act and muddies the water with bogus science, but its rushed and opaque rulemaking process cannot hide that its proposed repeal is contrary to law, science and basic common sense," the groups wrote in opposition to the proposal.

The Endangerment Finding is EPA's longstanding fact-based determination that greenhouse gas pollution - which is released when burning fossil fuels - threatens people's health and well-being. That finding means EPA has the obligation under the Clean Air Act to limit how much planet-warming pollution is dumped into the air, just like other harmful pollutants.

The finding is based on mountains of scientific evidence and has been affirmed repeatedly by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. It also aligns with the firsthand experiences of Americans across the country who are already facing the devastation and costs of climate-fueled disasters like worsening floods, storms, extreme heat, droughts, and wildfires.

Since adopting the Endangerment Finding, EPA has taken commonsense steps to reduce climate-altering pollution from power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas operations, reducing pollution and saving people across the country.

The cars and trucks standards have been a huge success, helping to not only reduce climate pollution but also reduce other types of pollution that cause early deaths and heart and lung diseases, save Americans thousands of dollars on fuel and maintenance costs, and support U.S. manufacturing jobs.

A new EDF analysis filed along with our comments shows how harmful and costly Zeldin's proposed repeals would be. By 2055, they will cumulatively:

• Add as many as 18 billion tons of climate-altering pollution into the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of three times annual U.S. emissions today.
• Increase harmful air pollution that would lead to as many as 77,000 early deaths and 52 million more asthma attacks.
• Increase net costs for Americans, up to $4.7 trillion for rising expenses due to harmful climate and air pollution. Zeldin's proposals will also raise gas prices and force Americans to spend up to an additional $1.7 trillion on fuel.

EPA's analysis ignored the proposal's pollution impacts entirely - one of many reasons it is unlawful. EDF's comments also include new analyses showing that clean vehicle standards help to increase consumer choice and that scientific evidence amassed since 2009 even more strongly confirms EPA's original Endangerment Finding. As the independent U.S. National Academies recently concluded, "current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute."

EPA is relying on a widely discredited report, developed by a hand-picked group of climate deniers known as the "Climate Working Group," to undo the Endangerment Finding. EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists are challenging in court the Trump EPA and Department of Energy's establishment and use of the CWG and its report, because it was drafted in secrecy and outside the proper legal process. In an order last week, the court rejected the government's sole argument for why the CWG is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

At hearings last month, the public voiced overwhelming opposition to EPA's proposed repeals. EPA is required by law to consider public input before making a final decision.