Climate Action
Let’s Fact Check the Environmental Protection Agency
October 6, 2025
On July 28, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made a big announcement: the agency plans to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. That might sound like something out of a Marvel movie, but it’s actually the cornerstone of U.S. climate policy. The Finding legally establishes that greenhouse gas emissions, from new motor vehicles, threaten public health and welfare. It gives the EPA the power to regulate these emissions not just from cars, but from power plants, factories, and other major pollution sources.
Without it? The EPA’s hands are tied when it comes to regulating emissions. This move raises eyebrows and questions, and the agency released a one-pager explaining their decision. We read it. We checked it. Here’s our fact check of their one pager HERE and here’s the highlights:
1) Making it Easy… or Not?
EPA Claim: “Through this reconsideration, EPA will give the public a chance to weigh in on the science, law, and policy choices at issue in the Finding”.
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: While the EPA says it’s opening the floor to debate, the federal government is cutting off the tools that make public comment more accessible; specifically, the API (Application Programming Interface) that allows people to submit comments through third-party platforms instead of directly through their Regulations.gov website.
In other words, yes, you can weigh in, but only if you go through the official portal, which many grassroots campaigns and advocacy orgs can’t easily access anymore. So it’s like being told you can speak… but only if you do it exactly the way they want.
2) Driving an Unbiased Dagger into our Hearts
Claim: “EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of this reconsideration process.”
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Okay, sure. But if the EPA isn’t prejudiced, why did Administrator Zeldin recently declare: “”We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion…” That’s not exactly a “wait and see” kind of comment. That is clearly a judgment. Also, let’s be clear: climate change isn’t a religion. It’s science. Hard science. As in, 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
3) What is the Endangerment Finding & Why Does it Matter?
Claim: “The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s overreaching climate agenda… That evasion ends today.”
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Let’s unpack this one, because it’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.The claim here is that the Endangerment Finding kicked off, “trillions of dollars of cost on Americans” and by rescinding it we will save $54 billion in costs annually. Funny how Zeldin doesn’t mention the real price tag Americans are paying: climate change-linked illnesses, death, and pollution-related diseases have been know for over a decade and some studies estimate they will cost the U.S. over $820 billion annually.
Also, those 2027 vehicle emissions standards the EPA now wants to reverse? They were projected to prevent 7.2 billion tons of CO₂ through 2055; that’s four times what the entire U.S. transportation sector emitted in 2021.
4) Duty to Regulate
Claim: “Massachusetts vs. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act’s general, Act-wide definition of “air pollutant” was broad enough to include carbon dioxide. Massachusetts explicitly did not hold that EPA was required to regulate these emissions from these sources.”
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: The 2007 Supreme Court ruling was very clear: greenhouse gases, such as excess carbon dioxide, are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA has a duty to regulate them unless it can show they DO NOT endanger public health or welfare. So unless Zeldin has some groundbreaking scientific discovery to share (spoiler: he doesn’t), the law still stands. The EPA still has a legal obligation to act.
5) By the Books
Claim: “The Endangerment Finding took an unorthodox approach… It never makes a straight-line conclusion that carbon dioxide from new motor vehicles is causing endangerment. It looked at this mix of six gases, from all sources over the world, … to determine that this mix contributed … an unknown amount above zero to climate change, and that climate change contributed … an unknown amount above zero of endangerment to public health. The Finding looked at U.S. vehicle emissions … and said that they were a big enough piece of the pie (some 4 percent of global emissions) to be “causing or contributing” to the mix of six gases—not to the endangerment itself.”
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: This one reads like a climate denialist word salad, but let’s chop it up. The EPA’s original Finding didn’t go rogue. It followed the law, the science, and the courts. It reviewed research from the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and U.S. agencies to conclude, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, six key greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, SF₆) collectively contribute to climate change.
Cars emit several of these, the most significant being carbon dioxide. That’s enough under the Clean Air Act. The law doesn’t require proof of direct causation by U.S. cars alone, just a finding that their emissions contribute to the problem. Which they very much do; in 2022, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. came from the transportation sector, the vast majority of which were from cars and truck emissions.
This whole “unorthodox” claim of government overreach is like saying a seatbelt is illegal because it wasn’t designed to stop every car accident. It’s just not how the law, or logic, works.
6) Massachusetts Still Stands
Claim: “These legal issues require fresh scrutiny, particularly in light of major Supreme Court cases… and new developments in science and technology.”
EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Here’s where the EPA throws some legal spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. They cite recent Supreme Court cases, none of which overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.
Loper Bright Enterprises et al. (Loper) overturned the Chevron deference, which used to let agencies like the EPA interpret unclear laws, but not Massachusetts as the case clearly gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions.
West Virginia v. EPA didn’t question whether the EPA can regulate emissions; instead, it said the EPA went too far by trying to shift the entire power industry from coal to cleaner energy without clear permission from Congress. So while the majority in West Virginia may have been skeptical of Massachusetts they did not overrule it.
Also, is Administrator Zeldin seriously claiming that “new science” or “new technology” means we have to reconsider whether greenhouse gases are dangerous? That’s like arguing a better thermometer means we should rethink whether fire is hot.
In fact, the latest science only makes the case for greenhouse gases being the cause of climate change stronger. We’ve seen the impacts firsthand. The climate crisis is no longer hypothetical, it’s happening in real time. So using “technological progress” as an excuse to scrap foundational climate protections isn’t just misleading – it’s backward.
This so-called “reconsideration” of the Endangerment Finding isn’t about science. The Finding has been upheld, reaffirmed, and scientifically validated. What’s changed isn’t the evidence – it’s the EPA’s leadership. Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.
This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at [email protected] or [email protected]. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.
