Tangle Podcast Summary

Episode: The EPA Repeals the Endangerment Finding
Host: Ari Weitzman (Managing Editor; standing in for Isaac Saul)
Date: February 18, 2026

Overview:

This episode provides a comprehensive and nonpartisan analysis of the EPA’s recent decision to rescind the "endangerment finding," a foundational 2009 policy that empowered the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The show explores the origins of the endangerment finding, the legal and regulatory framework it created, the implications of its repeal, and reactions across the political spectrum. The episode delivers detailed insight into how this regulatory rollback will impact the auto industry, energy production, future environmental policy, and legal battles to come.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Correction and Transparency [03:59]

• Ari opens with a correction regarding a prior episode’s reporting, demonstrating Tangle’s commitment to transparency:
  “This marks our 151st correction in our 341 week history… I try to do better next time.”
  [04:43]

2. Quick News Hits [05:43]

• Recap of recent key headlines, including rulings relating to ICE detentions, personnel changes at DHS, updates on Russia-Ukraine peace talks, and Peru’s presidential instability.
• Notably, the episode signals the shift in environmental regulation:
  “With the EPA no longer regulating greenhouse gas emissions, health and environmental experts are sounding the alarm on the impacts this could have in the long term.”
  [07:06]

3. What is the Endangerment Finding? [06:18–10:34]

• The "endangerment finding" (2009) allowed the EPA to regulate six greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, providing legal underpinning for regulation without Congressional action.
• It led to vehicle emissions/fuel efficiency standards, the Clean Power Plan, and Biden-era tailpipe emissions rules.
• The recent EPA move, announced by Administrator Lee Zeldin, eliminates this authority:
  • Zeldin: “Referred to by some as the holy grail of the climate change religion, the endangerment finding is now eliminated... returning common sense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American dream.”
    [09:58]
• Immediate effect: federal greenhouse gas emissions standards and related regulations are terminated.
• California and other states signal intent to sue.

4. What the Right Is Saying [12:34]

• General argument: Regulation of climate should come via Congress, not EPA; the finding overreached the Clean Air Act.
• Wall Street Journal: Calls repeal a "climate liberation act":
  • “The real import of the endangerment finding was to give the Obama and Biden teams legal license to mandate electric cars and force fossil fuel power plants to shut down.”
    [13:06]
• National Review: Dismisses the finding as a misreading of the Clean Air Act:
  • “Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide... cannot be considered air pollutants. The negative effects of greenhouse gases on human welfare... are purely theoretical and indirect.”
    [14:23]
• Judge Glock, New York Post: Sees Supreme Court as likely sympathetic to limiting EPA’s "administrative state" powers; the move restores power to Congress.

5. What the Left Is Saying [16:34]

• General argument: The move disregards scientific consensus and benefits polluters over the public.
• Byron Goodill & Abigail Dillon, The Hill:
  • “Instead of protecting us and our children from the climate crisis, the Trump administration is making climate denial official government policy.”
    [17:07]
• Steven Prager, Common Dreams:
  • “The repeal is expected to immediately eviscerate fuel efficiency standards and electric vehicle requirements for cars and trucks, which are already the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the US...”
    [18:20]
• Richard L. Rives, Bloomberg Law:
  • Critiques the EPA’s legal arguments, noting Congress provided for regulating pollutants affecting “weather and climate”—thus, the EPA is now ignoring congressional intent.
    [19:20]

6. Deep Dive: Regulatory Landscape and Analysis (Ari’s Take) [20:02]

Ari breaks down the regulatory frameworks:

• 1. EPA’s Actions

• Repeal of endangerment finding
• Rescinding EPA GHG regulatory framework (but not all emissions standards)
• Repealing ‘off-cycle’ efficiency credits (which are still recognized by NHTSA, not EPA)

• Key Distinctions

• CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards vs. EPA standards:
  • CAFE (Department of Transportation) standards for fleetwide fuel efficiency remain intact.
  • EPA standards for specific vehicle emissions (no longer include GHGs).
• Example:
  • “The EPA’s emission standards in general, they remain. They just don’t take GHGs into account. Furthermore, the entire set of fleetwide CAFE standards also remain intact.”
    [22:38]
• Claims that “the US will have no efficiency laws” are inaccurate; much of the regulatory framework persists.

• Off-Cycle Credits

• Features for efficiency that function outside of direct engine operation (e.g., auto start-stop).
• Removal by EPA doesn’t actually end their use, as NHTSA still acknowledges them.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Zeldin claims $1.3 trillion in deregulation savings reflect only gross benefits, not net.
• EPA’s own accounting actually shows a potential net $200 billion cost.
  [28:56]

• Most Significant Policy Impact: Power Plants, Aviation, & Heavy Industry

• Auto industry not likely to see massive changes, as CAFE standards persist.
• Largest risk: weakening the legal foundation for regulating power plants and industrial emissions.
• “The largest effect of rescinding the endangerment finding likely won’t be felt by the auto industry at all... they have to do with power plants.”

• Uncertainty for Manufacturers

• Without regulatory consistency, carmakers face uncertainty about how credits and future standards are calculated.

• Legal Prognosis and the Courts

• Ari predicts the courts may ultimately uphold the endangerment finding, as the EPA no longer advances credible scientific justification for repeal, and Supreme Court precedent supports the finding.
• The recent “removal of Chevron deference” (Loper Bright ruling) paradoxically makes it harder for EPA to reinterpret statutory meaning, meaning the prior court precedent stands even stronger.

Ari’s notable quote:

• “The practical effects of the EPA's latest move won’t really be felt, most particularly by the auto industry, but it takes a long time to explain why…”
  [20:14]

• “What’s even more interesting is that the court’s recent removal of Chevron deference actually hurts the EPA here… That means that the court won’t give deference to the EPA’s viewpoint in interpreting any legal challenge, leaving the Supreme Court’s prior determination to support the endangerment finding likely to stand.”
  [31:30]

• Conclusion

• The episode ends with Ari noting that the true impact will be in the broader energy and manufacturing sectors, and that all eyes should be on the courts for upcoming legal challenges.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Lee Zeldin (EPA Administrator):
  “Referred to by some as the holy grail of the climate change religion, the endangerment finding is now eliminated… delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American dream.”
  [09:58]

• Gavin Newsom (CA Governor):
  “If this reckless decision survives legal challenges, it will lead to more deadly wildfires, more extreme heat deaths, more climate driven floods and droughts, and greater threats to communities nationwide... California will sue to challenge this illegal action.”
  [10:10]

• Ari Weitzman:
  “I was prepared coming into this piece to talk about the tension between regulation and consumer choice, but after diving more into the story, I think that’s kind of a false framing.”
  [20:13]

• Wall Street Journal Editorial:
  "The scope of CO2 regulation is a decision for Congress. It’s richly ironic for Democrats who denounce Mr. Trump as an authoritarian to howl that he’s relinquishing power to regulate all corners of the economy under the guise of climate that the Biden and Obama administrations unilaterally claimed."
  [13:52]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:59] — Ari takes over, introduces episode theme and offers transparency correction
• [06:18] — What is the endangerment finding? Why is it important?
• [10:34] — What the right and left are saying
• [20:02] — Ari’s deep-dive analysis, regulatory breakdown, and forecast
• [31:30] — Legal challenges and effects of Supreme Court precedent
• [33:41] — Listener question: Foreign holdings of US debt (not related to main topic)
• [35:40] — Under the Radar, feel-good news sections

Listener Q&A [33:41]

• Question on how much US debt is held by NATO member countries.
  • “It’s extremely unlikely that these debt holdings could cause significant ruin to the US economy on their own… but that doesn’t mean high foreign debt is completely unproblematic.”
    [34:42]

Summary of Tone & Style

• Ari’s delivery is measured, thorough, and data-driven, while still accessible for non-wonky listeners.
• The podcast presents arguments from both political sides, cites primary sources, and clearly distinguishes between reporting and editorial take.
• The episode is honest about the complexity of federal regulatory frameworks and aims to demystify confusing elements.

For Those Who Haven’t Listened

This episode of Tangle offers an in-depth, balanced examination of the rollback of a key climate change regulation. The host clarifies that, despite media headlines, most auto emissions standards persist due to overlapping regulatory authorities. The true shakeup is in the legal foundation for regulating power plants and broad greenhouse gas regulation—a shift whose fate will likely be decided in federal courts. Both the logic and backlash on the right and left are presented clearly, making the episode a useful primer for anyone wanting a grounded, nuanced understanding of the EPA’s move and its real impacts beyond the headlines.