The Trump administration seeks to undermine the U.S. government’s capacity to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by asserting that these gases don’t pose a threat to public health. This initiative fits into a broader effort to loosen restrictions on power plants and vehicles by claiming that regulations hinder economic growth. However, this legal stance appears flimsy when juxtaposed with the extensive body of climate science demonstrating that increased greenhouse gas levels present a significant danger.

“This debate is nonsensical and lacks validity,” he remarks. David Doniger, part of the Natural Resources Defense Council, advocates for revisions from the administration.

The legal arguments hinge on a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from American power plants and vehicles indeed pose risks to human health. This “endangerment finding” grants regulatory authority to agencies overseeing these emissions. Subsequently, regulations have been implemented, enhancing fuel efficiency in vehicles and contributing to the previous administration’s initiatives aimed at minimizing emissions from power plants.

On July 29, EPA administrator Zeldin announced efforts to abolish these endangerment findings, dubbing it “the largest deregulation effort in U.S. history.” However, before this change occurs, the agency is required to publicly justify its decision and defend it against an impending lawsuit.

In a draft of the new regulations, the EPA asserts that the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not present a sufficient threat to justify emission reductions. This position contradicts key conclusions from climate science organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several U.S. national climate assessments, and even the EPA itself in 2009, which identified evidence that greenhouse gases pose a “strong and clear” risk.

“I think they’re throwing every possible argument out there to see what resonates,” Doniger comments. “They are recycling both old and new theories, all of which are quite weak.”

According to a 2018 study, evidence indicating risks associated with greenhouse gases has only intensified over recent decades. This reassessment of the decade-old endangerment rationale indicates advancements in climate science provide clearer tools to evaluate how climate change affects specific extreme weather events. Additionally, specific greenhouse gas emissions can be directly tied to damage from various extreme temperature occurrences.

To challenge this consensus, the EPA heavily leans on preliminary findings. A report released by the Department of Energy and authored by five well-known skeptics of mainstream climate science acknowledges that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. However, it questions the extent of this damage in the U.S. and discusses the positive effects of CO2 on plant growth, including its use as a fertilizer.

While some aspects of this report may reflect truths corroborated by climate science, other researchers contend that its flawed methodology fails to consider significant evidence that contradicts its overall conclusions. While CO2 may indeed promote plant growth, rising temperatures are anticipated to have a far more detrimental impact on agriculture and ecosystems.

“They selectively sift through data to find examples supporting their narrative while systematically ignoring far more substantial evidence that discredits it,” states Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University.

“I’m somewhat astonished that the government has released a document like this as an official publication,” adds Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth, a nonprofit research organization in California. “It resembles a blog post—an unorganized assortment of cherry-picked instances that fail to represent the broader, frequently criticized claims made by skeptics or the findings from extensive climate science research.”

Hausfather, who has been referenced multiple times in the DOE report, criticizes it as lacking peer review. He contrasts its production—drafted by a small team over several months—with the National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive effort involving hundreds of contributors over several years that was ultimately rejected by the Trump administration.

“The idea that these emissions incur no social costs is a thoroughly incorrect and exhausting argument,” argues Justin Mankin from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Reflecting on the extreme conditions associated with the warmest year on record in 2025, he emphasizes the stark reality: “What’s strikingly evident is that the repercussions of global warming are far greater than we understood in 2009.”