Trump's great dismantling

 

Trump's latest plot to destroy the world

 

The Great Dismantling: An Analytical Narrative of the Rescission of the EPA Endangerment Finding and the Reorientation of American Climate Policy

The Inception of a Radical Deregulatory Shift

The early weeks of 2026 have witnessed a structural transformation in the American regulatory state, primarily centered on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its fundamental authority to oversee the environmental health of the nation. At the heart of this shift is the formal rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a move that the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have characterized as the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States. This action is not merely a change in emission standards or a adjustment of compliance timelines; it represents a comprehensive effort to strip the federal government of the legal mandate to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The implications of this move extend far beyond the automotive and energy sectors, signaling a definitive retreat from nearly two decades of environmental policy based on the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding served as the legal cornerstone for all subsequent federal climate regulations. It was the administrative response to the Supreme Court's mandate in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, which established that greenhouse gases meet the definition of "air pollutants" and must be regulated if they are found to endanger public health or welfare. By overturning this finding, the current administration seeks to dissolve the very prerequisite for federal oversight of carbon dioxide, methane, and other planet-warming emissions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has framed this decision as a liberation of the American economy from "crushing" and "massive" regulations that have allegedly cost trillions of dollars and stifled industrial innovation.

The narrative of this deregulatory push is multifaceted, involving a secret group of climate contrarians at the Department of Energy, a aggressive confrontation with state-level authorities in California, and a global retreat from international climate treaties. The administration’s strategy relies on a rapid-fire series of executive orders and regulatory revisions designed to withstand judicial scrutiny while permanently altering the landscape of environmental law in favor of fossil fuel dominance. As the EPA moves to finalize these rules, the scientific community, led by groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Academies of Sciences, has voiced profound alarm over the potential for irreversible environmental and public health damage.

Key Greenhouse Gases Subject to the 2009 Finding

Substance	Common Symbol	Regulatory Scope under 2009 Finding
Carbon Dioxide	$CO_2$	Primary byproduct of fossil fuel combustion; target of vehicle and power plant rules
Methane	$CH_4$	High global warming potential; primary focus of oil and gas leakage regulations
Nitrous Oxide	$N_2O$	Emitted during agricultural and industrial activities; contributes to ozone depletion
Hydrofluorocarbons	$HFCs$	Potent synthetic gases used in refrigeration; subject to international phase-downs
Perfluorocarbons	$PFCs$	Long-lived gases from aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing
Sulfur Hexafluoride	$SF_6$	Extremely potent insulator in electrical grids; regulated for industrial efficiency

The Judicial and Legislative Origins of Climate Mandates

To understand the magnitude of the current administration’s actions, the analysis must return to the legal foundations established in the early 21st century. The trajectory of American climate policy was set by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, a 5-4 decision that fundamentally reinterpreted the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the EPA could not refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy preferences but must instead make a scientific determination as to whether these gases contribute to climate change that endangers the public. This ruling essentially placed a "mandatory clock" on the agency, requiring it to act if the science supported the finding of endangerment.

The 2009 Finding was the result of two years of rigorous scientific inquiry by the EPA, involving the review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies and the assessment of risks ranging from extreme heat waves and sea-level rise to the increased frequency of catastrophic wildfires. The determination focused on the "welfare" of the American people, which included the health of ecosystems, the stability of the food supply, and the safety of infrastructure. This finding was not merely a symbolic gesture; it was the statutory "trigger" that activated Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which mandates the regulation of emissions from new motor vehicles once endangerment is established.

The durability of this finding was tested repeatedly in the courts. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the Endangerment Finding, rejecting arguments that the science was too uncertain or that the EPA had overstepped its bounds. Even as different administrations entered office, they generally sought to adjust the stringency of the resulting rules rather than attacking the finding itself. The current move is unprecedented because it seeks to dismantle the structural underpinning of the rules rather than their specific targets, aiming to "break the tool itself" to prevent future administrations from ever using it again.

Historical Timeline of the Endangerment Finding

Date	Event	Significance
April 2007	Massachusetts v. EPA Ruling	SCOTUS confirms GHG are air pollutants; mandates EPA action
December 2009	Formal Endangerment Finding	EPA identifies 6 gases as threats; initiates GHG regulation
June 2012	D.C. Circuit Court Ruling	Court upholds the finding against challenges from industry and states
July 2025	Repeal Proposal Announced	Trump administration initiates formal process to rescind the finding
February 2026	Final Rule Publication	EPA and White House formalize the largest act of deregulation in history

The Secret Science and the Working Group Conflict

A pivotal element in the administration's attempt to reverse the scientific consensus was the creation of a specialized group within the Department of Energy known as the Climate Working Group (CWG). Convened in secret by Energy Secretary Christopher Wright—a former fossil fuel executive—the CWG was tasked with producing a report that could provide a "scientific" counterpoint to the established consensus that greenhouse gas pollution is harmful. This five-member group consisted entirely of researchers known for their "contrarian" views, many of whom have long been critics of climate modeling and the perceived "alarmism" of international scientific bodies.

The resulting report, titled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was released in July 2025. It argues that rising carbon dioxide levels are not only less damaging than believed but may actually provide net benefits to society, specifically in the realm of agriculture and plant growth. The report further asserts that the economic costs of aggressive climate mitigation are far greater than the potential damages of warming, and that humans are more than capable of adapting to any changes through technological innovation. This report has become a linchpin for the EPA's legal defense, being cited 22 times in the proposed rule to overturn the Endangerment Finding.

However, the CWG operated in a manner that critics and legal experts say violated federal law. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued the administration under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires transparency and a balanced membership for any committee advising the government. In late 2025, Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the administration had indeed broken the law by operating the CWG in secret and failing to provide public access to its records. This ruling forced the release of over 100,000 pages of internal documents, which revealed that political appointees had actively sought to direct the group's findings to match predetermined policy goals.

The response from the broader scientific community was swift and comprehensive. An international group of over 85 climate scientists, led by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M and Robert Kopp of Rutgers, published a 434-page rebuttal to the CWG report. Their review deconstructed the report as being "fraught with errors" and characterized by "cherry-picked" data. The rebuttal highlighted egregious scientific misrepresentations, such as the CWG’s claim that Arctic sea ice was only declining by 5%—a figure they had erroneously pulled from Antarctic data—when the actual decline in the Arctic has exceeded 40%. Furthermore, the scientists noted that approximately 11% of the citations in the CWG report were to the authors' own previous works, much of which had not been peer-reviewed for the specific claims being made.

Discrepancies in the Climate Working Group Report

Claim in CWG Report	Scientific Counter-Evidence	Source of Misinformation
Arctic sea ice declined by only 5% since 1980	Arctic sea ice declined by 40%; 5% figure belongs to Antarctic data	Misuse of geographic data sets
Rising $CO_2$ is a net benefit to US agriculture	Increased heat and extreme weather negate any $CO_2$ fertilization effect	Ignoring climate-driven crop failure risks
No evidence of intense global meteorological drought	Scientific consensus shows significant increase in drought intensity and duration	Selection of specific, non-representative regions
Corals can adapt to lower pH based on evolutionary history	Unprecedented marine heat waves are causing massive, irreversible coral bleaching	Mischaracterization of coral evolutionary biology
Climate change is a "challenge" but not a "catastrophe"	Observations show increasing frequency of "unnatural" mega-disasters	Subjective framing intended to downplay systemic risks

The Economic Calculations of Deregulation

The Trump administration’s primary public-facing argument for the rescission is rooted in an economic narrative of cost-cutting and consumer empowerment. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Administrator Lee Zeldin have repeatedly focused on the "staggering" cost of the previous administration's regulatory agenda, which they estimate to be $1.3 trillion. According to White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) staff, this figure represents the total regulatory burden imposed by the EPA during the preceding three and a half years, accounting for more than 80 percent of all new federal regulatory costs.

The administration argues that these costs are not borne by the government but are passed on directly to American families in the form of higher prices for vehicles, energy, and consumer goods. By repealing vehicle-related greenhouse gas standards alone, the administration claims it will save consumers approximately $1.13 trillion. On an individual basis, the EPA projects that these actions will reduce the average price of a new car by $2,400. This deregulatory effort is portrayed as a necessary step to halt an "EV mandate" that forces consumers to buy expensive electric vehicles that they may not want and that the current power grid may not be able to support.

Independent economic and environmental analysts, however, contend that the $1.3 trillion figure is fundamentally flawed because it accounts only for the costs of compliance while entirely ignoring the benefits of the regulations. Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund has noted that the EPA is essentially "ignoring the rule’s climate and health benefits," which include reduced fuel costs for more efficient vehicles and trillions of dollars in avoided climate damages. An analysis by the Associated Press in July 2025 found that the very rules being targeted for repeal could prevent tens of thousands of deaths and save the United States $275 billion for every year they remain in effect.

Furthermore, modeling conducted by Resources for the Future suggests that rolling back the greenhouse gas standards will actually result in a net cost to society of between $8 billion and $27 billion. While gasoline-powered vehicles might become cheaper to purchase in the short term, the decrease in fuel efficiency will lead to significantly higher lifetime fuel costs for the owners. The model predicts that reversing the standards to 2022 levels would increase the average lifetime fuel cost of a vehicle by nearly $4,500. This creates a long-term economic burden on households that far outweighs the upfront savings at the dealership.

Economic Impact Estimates: Administration vs. Independent Analysis

Metric	Administration Claim	Independent / Expert Analysis
Total Regulatory Savings	$1.3 Trillion (Direct Cost)	Net Societal Loss of $8B - $27B (Total Impact)
Vehicle Price Impact	-$2,400 per new car	Increased lifetime fuel costs of +$4,500
Health Benefits of Rules	Not calculated/Prioritized	$275 Billion per year in saved costs
EV Market Impact	Promoting "choice" by removing mandates	60% reduction in EV market share by 2030
Total Page Count of Rules (2024)	107,262 pages (Federal Register)	Evidence of comprehensive, transparent oversight

The Global Retreat: Withdrawal from the UNFCCC

The administration’s deregulatory agenda is being mirrored on the international stage by an unprecedented withdrawal from global climate treaties. On January 20, 2025, during his first day back in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14162, directing the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement for a second time. However, in early 2026, the administration took an even more drastic step by announcing its intention to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is the foundational 1992 treaty, signed by nearly every nation on Earth, that provides the framework for all international climate negotiations.

The withdrawal from the UNFCCC is a historic move that leaves the United States as the only nation in the world not party to the agreement. Under Article 25 of the convention, any party can withdraw by giving one year's written notice to the UN Secretary General. The administration has framed this as a necessary move to protect American interests from international bodies that "no longer serve" the country and that promote "woke" or "divisive" causes. By pulling out of the UNFCCC, the United States also automatically exits the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body that sets the global standards for climate risk assessment.

The implications for global diplomacy and the U.S. economy are profound. UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell described the move as a "colossal own goal," arguing that it will harm the American economy by ceding leadership in the clean energy transition to other major economies. Manish Bapna of the Natural Resources Defense Council added that this withdrawal is a "self-defeating" unforced error that will hamper the ability of U.S. companies to compete with China, which currently dominates the market for electric vehicles and renewable energy technology. Furthermore, as a "non-party," the United States will be relegated to "observer" status at international climate summits, losing its ability to vote or influence the trillions of dollars in global investments that are increasingly tied to climate targets.

International Climate Bodies and the US Withdrawal Status

Organization	Purpose	Status as of February 2026
UNFCCC	Foundational global climate treaty	1-year withdrawal notice submitted Jan 2026
Paris Agreement	Agreement to limit warming below $2^{\circ}C$	Withdrawal effective (Second time)
IPCC	Scientific body assessing climate risk	Withdrawal as a consequence of UNFCCC exit
24/7 Carbon-Free Energy	Collaborative clean power initiative	Withdrawal per Jan 2026 Memorandum
Commission for Env. Coop.	Oversight of North American environmental laws	Withdrawal per Jan 2026 Memorandum

The Confrontation with State Authority and the California Waiver War

The domestic front of this conflict is defined by a high-stakes legal battle between the federal government and individual states, led by California. For decades, California has exercised its authority under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act to request waivers from federal preemption, allowing it to set stricter vehicle emission standards to address its unique air quality challenges. Historically, dozens of other states—known as Section 177 States—have adopted California’s standards, creating a powerful regulatory bloc that covers nearly half of the U.S. automotive market.

In mid-2025, the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress moved to revoke these waivers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA is a tool typically used to overturn "rules" issued by agencies, but the administration applied it to the waivers granted by the previous EPA for California’s "Advanced Clean Cars II" (ACC II) and "Advanced Clean Trucks" (ACT) regulations. These rules were designed to phase out the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in California by 2035. By revoking the waivers, the federal government essentially attempted to strip California and the Section 177 States of their ability to enforce these clean-air mandates.

California Attorney General Andrea Campbell and Governor Gavin Newsom have responded with multiple lawsuits, arguing that the federal government is "running roughshod" over federalism and the separation of powers. The legal dispute is further complicated by a Department of Justice cease-and-desist letter issued in August 2025 to major automakers. The DOJ has directed these companies to stop complying with California’s standards, labeling them as "preempted" and "unlawful" following the CRA resolutions. This has placed automakers in an impossible position: they must decide whether to follow federal directives and risk being shut out of the California market, or follow California's rules and face federal enforcement.

Section 177 States Adopting California Vehicle Standards (Subset)

State	Adoption of ACC II	Market Share (Light-Duty)
California	Mandatory (Base State)	~12% of US Total
New York	Adopted	~4% of US Total
Massachusetts	Adopted	Significant Regional Market
Washington	Adopted	Key West Coast Participant
Total (all 17 states)	Various Standards	>40% of National Registrations

The Coal Offensive and the "Department of War"

A symbolic and strategic cornerstone of the administration's policy is the unprecedented promotion of the coal industry. In February 2026, President Trump is expected to sign an executive order mandating that the Department of Defense—which the administration has begun rebranding as the "Department of War"—purchase its electricity specifically from coal-fired power plants. This move is portrayed as a measure to enhance national security and energy reliability, with the administration claiming that "clean, beautiful coal" is essential to preventing grid failures and driving down electricity costs.

The administration’s "pro-coal" agenda includes several other aggressive measures:

• The Department of Energy has provided millions of dollars in "bailouts" to keep six aging coal plants in operation that were scheduled for retirement.

• The EPA has granted exemptions to more than 68 coal plants from mercury and air toxic standards (MATS), which are designed to protect local communities from brain-damaging pollutants.

• New deadlines have been issued that give coal plants an additional three to four years to comply with rules regarding the cleanup of toxic coal ash and heavy metal water pollution.

This policy shift has been warmly received by the fossil fuel industry, which reportedly contributed $3.5 million to the 2024 campaign efforts. In recognition of these efforts, the Washington Coal Club—a pro-industry organization—awarded President Trump the inaugural "Undisputed Champion of Coal" title in February 2026. However, energy experts such as Erin Sikorsky of the Center for Climate & Security have warned that this "going backwards" strategy will increase costs for taxpayers and leave the military reliant on outdated and increasingly expensive energy sources.

The rebranding of the "Department of War" (DoW) also signals a shift in corporate relations. A January 2026 executive order titled "Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting" grants the Secretary of War authority to restrict dividends and stock buybacks for "underperforming" defense contractors. This order directs the DoW to identify contractors that are prioritizing investor returns over the timely production of "critical weapons and equipment". While framed as a "peace through strength" initiative, it represents a significant and potentially coercive expansion of presidential power over the private sector.

Coal Industry Support and Deregulatory Actions

Action	Stated Goal	Impact / Criticism
DoW Coal Mandate	National security; grid reliability	Higher energy bills; increased pollution
MATS Rule Exemptions	Reducing "undue burden" on coal plants	Increased mercury exposure in local water
Coal Ash Deadline Extension	Allowing industry more time to adjust	Continued groundwater contamination
"Undisputed Champion" Award	Recognizing industry support	Symbolic of deep fossil fuel ties
DoE Plant Bailouts	Preventing "premature" retirements	Distorting energy markets against renewables

The 1-in-10-out Regulatory Budget and the DOGE Framework

To ensure that the current wave of deregulation is permanent and systemic, the administration has implemented a new regulatory framework overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which introduced a "1-in-10-out" regulatory budget. This requires agencies to repeal ten existing regulations for every new significant regulation they issue.

This policy is a dramatic escalation from the "1-in-2-out" rule of the first Trump term. Furthermore, the order sets a total incremental cost cap for all new regulations at "significantly less than zero" for the fiscal year 2025. The DOGE, led by high-profile figures outside traditional government roles, has been tasked with working with the OMB to identify "unlawful" or "unconstitutional" regulations that can be rescinded immediately under the "good cause" exception of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Critics argue that this "blunt instrument" ignores the quality and net benefits of regulations. For example, a regulation that costs $1 million but saves $100 million in healthcare costs would still count as a "costly" regulation that must be offset by ten repeals. Legal experts suggest this framework is designed to create a "regulatory chokehold," making it nearly impossible for federal agencies to issue new protections for health, safety, or the environment. Furthermore, by slashing the federal workforce and eviscerating agencies like the EPA, the administration ensures that even the regulations that remain on the books will lack the staff necessary for enforcement.

Trump Administration Deregulatory Mandates

Requirement	Policy Tool	Scope and Impact
1-in-10-out	EO 14192	10 repeals required for every 1 new rule
Net Zero Cost Cap	OMB Guidance	Total annual cost of all rules must be <0
"Good Cause" Repeals	DOGE Implementation	Attempt to bypass notice-and-comment process
DEI Abolishment	Executive Order	Removal of diversity programs across all agencies
Circular A-4 Reversion	OMB Directive	Return to 2003 cost-benefit analysis methods

Conclusion: The Long-Term Consequences of Structural Deregulation

The rescission of the EPA Endangerment Finding and the attendant deregulatory policies represent a fundamental shift in the American approach to the environment and public health. By attacking the legal and scientific foundation of climate regulation, the administration is attempting to create a "permanent vacuum" that states, courts, and future administrations will struggle to fill. The speed and scale of these actions—from withdrawing the U.S. from the entire global climate regime to mandating coal use for the military—signal a definitive end to the era of federal climate leadership.

The outcome of this "regulatory Everest" will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court upholds the administration’s use of the "major questions doctrine" and the reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act, it will significantly constrain the ability of the federal government to address any global pollutant without explicit and new congressional authorization. In the interim, the public faces a fragmented regulatory landscape where health risks are increasing, international standing is diminished, and the economic burden of climate-driven disasters continues to mount. The "dagger into the heart of the climate-change religion," as Administrator Zeldin reportedly described it, may achieve its goal of short-term industrial relief, but the long-term societal and environmental toll remains beyond current calculation.