Staff Reports
The Trump administration is eyeing a significant reversal of the Obama-era “endangerment finding,” a key regulation that helped ignite the climate change movement known as the Green New Deal. Emails pried loose through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal that the environmental regulatory framework under Obama wasn’t just a scientific assessment; it was more like a political love letter to progressivism that came with a predetermined agenda.
When looking back at these emails from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it becomes clear that the scientific integrity of the endangerment finding might have taken a backseat to a desire for regulatory control. Evidence suggests that the Obama EPA officials were practically drafting regulations before any legitimate scientific review had been completed. This rush for a political victory raises questions about whether the science was ever the real priority or merely a convenient excuse to push through a radical agenda.
The emails depict conversations among top Obama officials about how to leverage the situation for progressive policies while posing as scientific process. Illustratively, a Georgetown law professor praised then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for being at the “forefront of progressive national policy” regarding one of the most pressing issues of our time. It’s quite the title for a position that should focus on environmental science. Instead, it feels like a backstage pass to an activist summit.
The inside story (emails) on how the climate endangerment finding came about in the Obama era. Its pretty ugly. If Trump wants to overturn this, should be easy.https://t.co/zL63O6gUFV
— Judith Curry (@curryja) March 12, 2025
With this recent evidence, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has a golden opportunity to dismantle the Obama-era finding that has shaped so much of the federal government’s energy policies. This could be the moment when common sense prevails over political pandering, as Zeldin reportedly urged the White House to strike down this questionable declaration. After all, if the basis for damning greenhouse gases was nothing more than a political play, why should it continue to entangle the government in regulatory red tape?
The history of regulatory overreach is littered with instances of scientific data being cherry-picked to support predetermined conclusions. Take, for example, the infamous Massachusetts v. EPA case, which was rooted in a shaky consensus about what constitutes an “air pollutant.” Even Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, pointed out that anything airborne, from frisbees to flatulence, could qualify under these definitions—opening the door to spectacular levels of bureaucratic absurdity. Yet here we are, years later, still dealing with the fallout from a ruling driven more by political will than by solid scientific evidence.
In the meantime, conservatives are calling on the Trump administration to carefully dissect the processes that led to the endangerment finding, especially in light of just how much has been kept away from the public eye. If Zeldin gets it right, this could finally mark the end of the climate alarmism era that was built on smoke and mirrors. For everyone still stuck in the climate echo chamber, it might be a tough pill to swallow, but the American public deserves clarity and transparency without the fog of political bias.
