Weakened EPA, Silenced Science, and a Warming Planet: What’s Next?
August 6, 2025 — Susan Greene
In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Ageny (EPA) issued the Endangerment Finding—a science-based determination declaring that greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare. It was the legal backbone for regulating climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. This week, Administrator of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has targeted that foundational finding for repeal—and it’s clear that political control, not science, drives the agenda.
The EPA Is No Science Agency—Yet It’s Destroying Its Own Research Foundation
Traditionally, the EPA has been a regulatory body that leans on scientific research. But this year it eliminated its Office of Research and Development (ORD), triggering thousands of layoffs. According to PBS, severing ORD cuts off the agency’s in-house scientific expertise and forces reliance on external, often politicized, sources .
At the same time, NOAA and USGS climate research capacities are being hollowed out. This dismantling of the federal scientific apparatus makes revoking the Endangerment Finding not only irresponsible—it’s meaningless. Without a science base to argue against greenhouse gas dangers, the reversal is purely rhetorical.
Science Speaks—Even Below EPA Thresholds
Consider the recent Boston College study: in 2019, approximately 2,780 deaths in Massachusetts were attributable to air pollution—nearly 5% of all state deaths—even though average PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less) levels were only 6.3 µg/m³ (micrograms per cubic meter), well below the EPA limit of 12 µg/m³ but above the WHO’s recommended 5 µg/m³. That includes 2,185 lung cancer deaths, 1,677 heart disease deaths, 343 from chronic lung disease, and 200 due to stroke. It also caused 15,386 pediatric asthma cases, 308 low-weight births, and an IQ loss of nearly 2 million “Performance IQ” points among children.
“We hope to break through this complacency and increase awareness. Air pollution is killing 2,780 people in Massachusetts each year, nearly 5% of all deaths in the state, and that is a big deal.”
Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Professor of Biology, Director of the BC observatory, Boston College
National figures are even more alarming: ambient air pollution caused 4.5 million deaths globally in 2019 and accounted for nearly $4.6 trillion in economic losses—about 6.2% of global GDP.
This science—and the public health it reflects—contradicts any argument for weakening the Endangerment Finding.
Money Talks: Fossil Fuel Cash and Campaign Leverage
Not surprisingly, the politics here are deeply financial. A Yale Climate Connections report estimates the fossil fuel industry spent $219 million in the run-up to the 2025 administration—effectively buying influence that’s now reflected in policy .
Since Trump claims he supports state autonomy, one might expect decentralized decision-making. As documented by the ACLU, that rhetoric rings hollow when states resist his priorities—in such cases, federal funding is withheld or threatened. The ACLU calls this behavior “dangerous, dumb, and undemocratic,” pointing out that Trump uses conditional funding to punish dissenting states. Applying this to climate policy, the message is clear: comply with federal repeal of climate safeguards—or lose critical funding.
The United States remains deeply anchored to fossil fuels: in 2023, petroleum, natural gas, and coal still made up approximately 84% of total primary energy production, powering 60 % of American electricity generation despite the rise of renewables (which account for just 8–9%). The oil and natural gas sector supports around 10.8 million jobs—over 5 % of national employment—and contributes up to 7.6 % of U.S. GDP, totaling nearly $1.8 trillion annually. Meanwhile, the U.S. has evolved into a major exporter of both crude oil and liquefied natural gas, with refined petroleum exports exceeding imports and signaling energy dominance—but this dominance is anchored in fossil fuel systems, not clean innovation. As global markets shift toward renewable technologies, the failure to accelerate a domestic clean energy transition imperils long-term economic stability and international competitiveness. In short, fossil fuel supremacy may bring short-term gains, but without redirecting strategic investment into clean energy, the U.S. risks losing its leadership in the energy economy of the future.
Flip-Flops and Performative Deregulation
Administrator Lee Zeldin’s about-face on clean energy reveals the politicization of climate policy at the highest levels. Once a vocal supporter of renewables, Zeldin praised solar and wind development for their economic and national security benefits. This past weekend, during a CNN interview, he was confronted with his own past statements—only to reverse course and champion fossil fuels as essential to the American economy. The shift reflects not a change in evidence, but in allegiance—to an administration buoyed by $219 million in fossil fuel industry contributions.
The consequences of this reversal are already unfolding. As NPR reports, the EPA recently weakened vehicle emissions standards that would have reduced climate pollution and improved air quality for vulnerable communities. These rollbacks come not because the rules were unworkable, but because the administration chose industry profits over public health. Zeldin’s hypocrisy is more than political theater—it’s a policy direction that favors donors over data, and leaves everyday Americans breathing the cost.
Regulatory Agency Without Regulators
Removing the Endangerment Finding doesn’t simply undo a single climate regulation—it strikes at the legal foundation that allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Established in 2009, the Endangerment Finding concluded that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This gave the EPA the authority—and obligation—to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Without it, the agency loses its most powerful legal tool for addressing climate change. As environmental law scholars point out, revoking the Finding would effectively nullify a decade and a half of climate policy and open the door to lawsuits aimed at weakening or blocking future regulation.
“This would be one of the most damaging actions, really, ever taken in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency, if they move forward with an effort to just walk away from protecting the American people from some of the most dangerous pollution in our lives,”
Vickie Patton, Chief Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund
Compounding this crisis is the EPA’s simultaneous dismantling of its scientific foundation. In July, the agency eliminated its Office of Research and Development (ORD), laying off thousands of scientists and cutting off a key internal source of environmental health data. The EPA also now leans less on external scientific consensus—such as research from NOAA and USGS—which has been marginalized or defunded under the current administration. Without scientific infrastructure, the EPA cannot credibly assess risk, draft evidence-based rules, or withstand legal scrutiny. This is not ordinary deregulation—it is deliberate sabotage of the agency’s capacity to function. In stripping away both the legal justification for climate action and the scientific apparatus behind it, the administration is rendering the EPA incapable of protecting public health or the environment in any meaningful way.
Public Opinion vs. Political Posturing
Polling from the Pew Research Center shows a clear disconnect between public opinion and federal climate policy under the current administration. As of March 2024, 69% of Americans—including nearly half (47%) of younger Republicans under age 30—believe the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. The data also shows strong bipartisan support for expanding renewable energy sources like wind and solar, alongside growing concern over extreme weather and air pollution. Despite this, the Trump administration continues to act as though climate denial is a winning political stance, doubling down on fossil fuel expansion and dismantling climate protections such as the Endangerment Finding. This growing disconnect between voters and policymakers not only undermines democratic accountability—it isolates governing institutions from the public will, weakening the legitimacy of environmental policy at a time when public engagement is most urgently needed.
What happens next?
- Public Health Will Suffer: Studies show that even modest PM2.5 levels cause significant mortality and cognitive arm. Without regulation based on the Endangerment Finding, those harms will worsen.
- Science Will be Ignored: Eliminating the ORD and sidelining NOAA and USGS leaves no scientific guardrail against policy driven ideology or profit.
- Federalism Will Become Punitive: Trump’s selective “state autonomy” signals the expectation of obedience — not diversity of state-level climate approaches.
- Innovation Will Stall: Clean energy industries are booming — but only with regulatory support that’s now eroding as the fossil fuel lobby profits, the broader economy, public health, and global leadership suffer.
The attempt to revoke the Endangerment Finding isn’t grounded in evidence. It disregards decades of epidemiology, including the Harvard Six Cities findings tying particulate pollution to reduced life expectancy, and the Boston College data showing thousands of avoidable deaths annually—even below EPA pollution thresholds.
This is regulatory theater—and its victims are real people: children, seniors, asthma sufferers, low-income communities. The EPA cloak has been shed. What remains is political power protecting fossil fuel interests at the expense of clean air, public health, and the scientific truth.
Without opposition, Americans will breathe the costs.