The EPA repeals the endangerment finding.

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.

What do you have to lose?

Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.

[Podcast Contributor]

Okay, I have to tell you, I.

Was just looking on ebay where I go for all kinds of things I love.

And there it was.

[Ari Weitzman]

That hologram trading card.

[Podcast Contributor]

One of the rarest. The last one I needed for my set. Shiny like the designer handbag of my dreams.

[Ari Weitzman]

One of a kind.

[Podcast Contributor]

Ebay had it. And now everyone's asking, ooh, where'd you.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Get your windshield wipers?

[Ari Weitzman]

Ebay has all the parts that fit my car.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

No more annoying, just beautiful.

[Podcast Contributor]

Millions of finds, each with a story. EBay, things people love.

[Better Help Advertiser]

Better Help Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Podcast Contributor]

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

[Isaac Saul]

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening.

And welcome to the Tangle podcast.

I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and I'm actually just dropping in here really quickly.

To give you guys a heads up that I was obviously not on the podcast yesterday. I'm off again today. I mean, you're hearing my voice now, but I'm about to pass the mic over to our team. I am in the middle of a crazy two weeks of travel. I'm going coast to coast for a family reunion and then I'm going down to a newsletter conference in Austin, Texas, and speaking on a panel down there. Got some travel happening for some reporting going on. So it's just been a little nuts and it's hard to find a good, quiet time to hit the studio. So I just wanted to drop in, say hi, let you guys know I'm still here. There are a lot of other voices that you're hearing on the podcast this week, which I'm excited about they're gonna be here this week and a little bit next week. Ari, Audrey, Lindsay, John and Will obviously will be in and out. They are also on a reporting trip right now, actually out in Utah, which is really exciting, working on a YouTube video that we're super excited to share with you guys. So there's a ton of stuff going on and we're excited to intro some new members of the team to you guys on the show. I'll be in and out this week. I'll be in and out next week and just wanted to give you guys a heads up about it. So if you don't hear my voice for a day or two, don't worry, everything's good. I'm here, I'm working, I'm writing, I'm banging out stuff for the Tangle ecosystem, maybe just not on the podcast every day. And I'm excited to get back in the chair on a regular basis in the coming weeks. So keep your ears out for some different voices on the podcast and also for a special suspension of the rules coming up this week. And then I'll be back on the mic for a Friday edition, which I'm looking forward to. All right, have a good one. Here's Ari.

[Ari Weitzman]

Good morning. I'm your host for today, Tango's managing editor, Ari Weitzman, which means one of two things. Either I'm about to tell you about a bunch of numbers or we're going to talk about an environmental issue today. It's going to be a little bit of both. We're covering the EPA's recent decision to rescind the endangerment finding. A 2009 rule that does a bunch of stuff also doesn't do some stuff. So we're going to spend a lot of time getting elbow deep in the muck and trying to figure out what's going on, what it does, what it doesn't do, and what the net effect of this new regulations reversal are going to be. As we get started, though, first I have to give a quick correction to something that we published in yesterday's piece. We wrote that border czar Tom Homan, quote, had taken over responsibility of the operation, which is the operation in Minnesota from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in late January, end quote. Actually, Homan took over supervision of Operation Metro surge on the ground from former U.S. border Patrol commander at large Gregory Bevino, not Noem. Bevino reported to Noem while Homan reports directly to President Trump. That was the source of our error. This marks our 151st correction in our 341 week history and it's our first correction since February 10th. We track corrections. We place them at the top of our podcast and newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers. This is the first time I think I've actually had to read one of these on air. Doesn't feel great. Try to do better next time.

[Podcast Contributor]

Thanks Ari. Let's get into today's quick hits. Number one A federal judge ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot redetain Kilmar Abrego Garcia who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March because a 90 day detention period has expired and the government does not have a viable plan to deport him. Number two DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin announced on social media that she is leaving her position. She said the top role in her department will be filled by one of her deputies, Lauren Biz, and conservative commentator Katie Zachariah will join DHS as a spokesperson. Number three Ukraine and Russia ended a brief round of peace talks on Wednesday, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy describing the negotiations as not easy. Separately, Iran's foreign minister said the country agreed to quote guiding principles with the United States in nuclear talks, but that more work is needed to reach a formal agreement. Vice President J.D. vance said Iran refused to acknowledge certain key demands from the US Number four A man was arrested after running toward the US Capitol with a loaded shotgun. US Capitol Police say his motive has not been determined. Number five Peru's Congress ousted Interim President Jose J. After four months in office following lawmakers claim that he failed to disclose meetings with Chinese businessmen. He becomes Peru's third consecutive president to be removed. 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. Effective immediately, we're repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond. On Thursday, February 12, Environmental Protection Agenc Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency had rescinded the endangerment finding, a 16 year old determination that allowed past administrations to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The EPA previously said that it would pursue curtailing the rule in July, claiming that the deregulation would save the auto industry an expected $54 billion. By repealing the endangerment finding, the EPA removes the scientific and legal justification for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. In Massachusetts v. Epa, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases fit within the clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant and required the EPA to regulate these emissions if the agency found that they endangered human health. The EPA instituted the endangerment finding after President Barack Obama took office in 2009, basing its authority to regulate airborne pollutants that became well mixed into the atmosphere on section 202 of the Clean Air Act. At the time, the administration was having difficulty passing climate change legislation through Congress. In 2010 and 2022, the EPA denied petitions to reconsider the endangerment finding, and in 2012, the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the EPA on a legal challenge against it. The endangerment finding states that the current and projected concentrations of six gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride in the atmosphere threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations. Although it does not itself impose regulations, the finding provided the legal basis for agency standards on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency in the auto industry and credits to automakers for instituting features that limit emissions. It also justified the 2015 Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant emissions and the strict tailpipe emission standards put in place during President Joe Biden's administration. In 2024, Administrator Zeldin called the repeal the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history, saying it would save Americans over $1.3 trillion and benefit both manufacturers and consumers. Zeldin said, quote referred to by some as the holy grail of the climate change religion, the endangerment finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning common sense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American dream, end quote. Critics decry the deregulation, saying the Trump administration is removing a vital environmental protection. California Governor Gavin Newsom said, quote, 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. He added that California will, quote, sue to challenge this illegal action, end quote. Next up, before Ari gives his take, I'll get into what the right and left are saying about the repeal.

[Ari Weitzman]

Foreign.

[Isaac Saul]

We'll be right back after this quick break. A well built wardrobe is about pieces that work together and hold up over time. That's what Quince does best. Premium materials, thoughtful design, and everyday staples that feel easy to wear and easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. Quince has the everyday essentials I love with quality that lasts organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion, lighter jackets that keep you warm in the changing seasons. The list goes on and on. Quince works directly with top factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. As I sit here recording this advertisement right now I'm wearing my Quince cashmere hoodie. It's one of my favorite pieces out of their winter and fall collection. It's ridiculously soft and it does not cost a fortune. So if you want to, you can go refresh your wardrobe with Quince right now. Go to quince.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comtangle free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comtangle.

[Podcast Contributor]

Why choose a sleep number Smart bed?

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Can I make my site softer?

[Podcast Contributor]

Can I make my site firmer?

[Ari Weitzman]

Can we sleep cooler?

[Podcast Contributor]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort offered for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus free home delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

Here's what the Right is saying the right broadly supports the repeal, saying climate regulation should come through Congress, not the epa. Some claim the finding went beyond the Clean Air Act's intent, and others argue the administration has strong legal footing if it faces an appeal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the 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. Trump EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has moved to roll back the Biden regulatory overreaches. But as long as the endangerment finding is in effect, a future Democratic president could reimpose the Biden climate diktats and go even further, say, by banning petroleum powered lawnmowers and gas space heaters or stoves. Repealing the endangerment finding could stop this regulatory ping pong. The climate lobby is sure to challenge the recession, which could then tee up a case for the Supreme Court to revisit its misconceived Massachusetts VEPA precedent. 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. National Review's editors said federal regulators finally get out of the climate business, regardless of how climate change will affect Americans health and welfare decades from now. The EPA's finding was a gross mutilation of the Clean Air Act's plain meaning, which allows only for the regulation of harmful air pollution. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, as a natural and eternal component of the atmosphere by their nature cannot be considered air pollutants. Neither are such substances threatening if the word has any limits to its meaning, as they do no injury to those who breathe them in. The negative effects of greenhouse gases on human welfare via climate change, if they ever materialize in the face of adaptation, are purely theoretical and indirect. If nothing else, the end of the endangerment finding is a triumph for realistic governance over moral fanaticism, since the EPA was never going to avert significant climate change with any regulatory scheme it could devise. The United States contributes less than 13% of global emissions, a shrinking share. If the country somehow achieved President Biden's goal of net zero emissions by 2050, which was never remotely possible, it might reduce global temperatures by one tenth of a degree by the end of this century. In the New York Post, Judge Glock wrote that Trump's about to cancel Obama's most outrageous power grab. Environmentalists will argue that the finding was required by an earlier Supreme Court ruling and that climate change is indeed a threat to public health. Yet the earlier Supreme Court climate change ruling underestimated the vast potential it gave to the administrative state to reshape the economy. Today's Supreme Court is laser focused on the dangers imposed by an overreaching administrative state. In 2022, the justices struck down an effort to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by power plants through the endangerment finding, declaring that in the case of a major question that affected vast swathes of the economy, Congress would have to clearly authorize any administrative action, it's hard to think of a more major question than regulating greenhouse gases from all cars across the United States. Although the Supreme Court has at times upbraided Trump for his efforts to rule by executive action, in this case, the president is using executive action to reduce the power of the government. The courts should uphold his endangerment finding, withdrawal and restore power to Congress, which is supposed to authorize new laws. The EPA does not and should not have such power. Here's what the left is. The left strongly criticizes the repeal, arguing it refutes the scientific consensus on climate change. Some say the administration's decision will only benefit the fossil fuel industry. Others highlight inconsistencies in EPA's legal rationale. In the Hill, Byron Goodill and Abigail Dillon said the ruling puts polluters over people. Instead of protecting us and our children from the climate crisis, the Trump administration is making climate denial official government policy. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is repealing its own scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. For 15 years, the endangerment finding has affirmed what we can all see with our own eyes. Our government's authority and obligation to address climate reality is a matter of irrefutable science and settled law, which has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. By trying to upend the law, the Trump administration is seeking to consign us to extreme weather that will only drive more suffering in our country and around the world. Heat and wildfires will worsen air quality, exacerbating heart and lung diseases. Deadly storms will continue to cost lives, displace people, threaten food and water safety, and create billions of dollars in damages. Like the difficult questions our children ask us, we ask this administration what is the cost of an ER visit for a child struggling to breathe? What is the cost of a home lost to a wildfire? Why are our lives worth less than polluter profits in Common Dreams? Steven Prager called the move a gift to big oil donors. The finding has been a target of the fossil fuel industry since it was reached under President Donald Trump, who has boasted openly of serving the fossil fuel industry in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars of financial support during his last election. They have found their hero. Indeed, 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 contributing about 1.8 billion metric tons in 2022. While the White House has said the reduced efficiency standards will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the $87 trillion in economic disruption that a study by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania estimated will come over the next 25 years as a result of increased natural disasters and sea level rise caused by American corporations. Fossil fuel outputs In Bloomberg Law, Richard L. Rives argues the EPA is ignoring Congress's intent in unwinding greenhouse gas rules. EPA claims that when Congress enacted the Clean air Act in 1970 it sought to control air pollution that threatens health and welfare through local and regional exposure and wasn't concerned with global pollutants like greenhouse gases. But EPA's assertion ignores voluminous references to the contrary in the legislative debates, which show that Congress was in fact concerned about global pollution, including climate change. A major roadblock to EPA's repeal of the endangerment is that the statutory definition of welfare includes effects on weather and climate. Clearly, Congress understood the difference between climate, which involves changes in long term meteorological patterns, and weather, where the changes are short term. In July 2025, when EPA proposed repealing the endangerment finding, it relied in part on the claim that the finding no longer had the requisite scientific support. That claim has since been so thoroughly discredited that the agency is no longer using it to justify the appeal. So now the agency confines itself to arguments involving statutory interpretation. These, however, fare no better alright, that's it for what the right and left are saying. I'm going to pass it back to Ari for his take in today's reader question. Ari, over to you.

[Ari Weitzman]

All right, that's it for what the left and right are saying. Which leads me to my take right at the jump. I'll admit to being a bit of a greenie. I don't personally begrudge people who need extra towing or passenger capacity their choice of vehicle. But I think it's reasonable that the federal government institute policies that lead people who don't need these features towards choices that are better at protecting common goods. By which I mean clean air, public safety, and stable climate. Personally, I have a truck. It can handle a muddy, rutted New England road. It can tow a small car and it seats five. But it's also a hybrid and gets about 30 miles per gallon. My bias coming into this story is that I want people who don't really need large vehicles to be nudged towards decisions that are like the one I made, and away from unnecessary gas guzzlers that have poor sight lines. I was prepared coming into this piece to talk about the tension between regulation and and consumer choice, but after diving more into the story, I think that's kind of a false framing. 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 that isn't the right place to focus. Let's get started with what Lee Zaudin actually did on Thursday when Zheldin rescinded the endangerment finding. He didn't bring all emissions regulations down with it. Instead, he did three separate things. First, he repealed the agency's endangerment finding. Second, he rescinded the EPA's greenhouse gas, or GHG, regulatory framework. He could have left the EPA's emission standards in place temporarily while the administration reconsidered the scientific backing for regulations. But he decided to bundle those actions together before even getting to Zeldin's third action. I have to pause here to explain our entire regulatory framework for vehicles, and as best I can, of which the endangerment finding is only a small part. The first meaningful federal tailpipe emission standards were codified in the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution control Act of 1965 that authorized the federal government to set exhaust emission standards for new cars. The 1970 Clean Air act handed the government enforcement power, ultimately creating what's called today a certificate of conformity. These certificates limit the amounts of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, and fuel vapor that are allowed to exit a car's tailpipe. After reaching its endangerment finding in 2009, the EPA added in GHGS as part of those emission standards, every car in the United States has to hit a set of emission standards to get the certificate. And if it doesn't, then it can't be sold. Period. These standards took shape over time, and they applied differently to different weights and classes of vehicles. For instance, Ford's F150 is going to produce more exhaust than the Ford Focus, and the standards take that into account. However, at the same time as the EPA was developing its emission standards, the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or nhtsa, developed an entirely separate set of efficiency standards. Those were based on the Energy Policy and conservation act of 1975. That law was passed in direct response to the 1973 oil embargo. And these efficiency standards came out of Congress's concern over foreign oil dependence, not air quality and not climate. The NHTSA developed a set of standards to enforce this law called cafe, which stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. These are very different from certificates of conformity, which apply to individual vehicles. Instead, CAFE standards apply to a manufacturer's entire fleet, weighted by popularity. That means a carmaker like Stellantis can offset the more inefficient Dodge Ram with a very efficient Fiat 500e. But since the Ram is so much more popular, Stellantis needs to find a way to make sure their more popular Rams and Jeep Wranglers are efficient enough to remain fleet compliant. With me so far, two sets of standards. One from The EPA that measures tailpipe emissions. And then there's one from the NHTSA called cafe and that measures fleet wide efficiency standards. Those are related but different. That can be confusing. It was confusing to the New York Times, which published an article last week that said with the endangerment finding gone, the United States will essentially have no laws on the books that enforce how efficient America's passenger cars and trucks should be. That quote is almost exactly wrong. The NHTSA deals with efficiency standards. Those will remain in place. EPA tailpipe standards are completely separate. Zeldin's second action, the one wiping out EPA's GHG emission standards, removed GHG emissions as a requirement for a certificate of conformity. However, 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. All of that is still here. And none of that even touches how California standards fit in the regulatory framework, which we'll get into in a bit. Finally, that brings us to Zeldin's third action repealing all off cycle consumption credits. Off cycle credits are extra points the EPA gives to automakers for applying efficiency benefits that take effect when the engine isn't driving the car. Like that Start Stop feature that automatically stops an engine to save on fuel when the car isn't in motion. Other off cycle credit features include grille shutters that close at highway speeds to reduce drag, high efficiency air conditioning and solar reflecting coatings to reduce heat. Zonen's third action removed the EPA's crediting system for these features. But the EPA doesn't apply these credits. The nhtsa, which oversees cafe, which is still in existence, that's what applies them. As Hyundai made clear in a statement, repealing EPA credits won't make features like the Auto Start Stop extinct. Here's what Hyundai Start Stop technology has never been federally mandated, and the EPA's recent action removes regulatory incentives associated with it rather than prohibiting its use. But more importantly, these credits are actually still in effect since they're applied to an enforcement overseen by a totally different federal department. It's all confusing, but this is basically how the regulatory structure with off cycle credits works. The EPA calculates what an off cycle feature might provide as an emissions benefit in terms of grams per mile. Then it converts that benefit into an efficiency credit for the nhtsa. Manufacturers can then apply those credits against CAFE requirements so they can keep their entire fleet compliant with the NHTSA's efficiency standards. That means Stellantis gets extra credit for installing Start Stop features. On all its Wranglers and Rams to keep its fleet compliant. That entire regulatory structure is still there. Zonden only removed the basis for the calculations, essentially leaving these regulations intact, but based on a logic that technically no longer exists, creating uncertainty for how they might change in the future. All of which is bad news for manufacturers. They want certainty and they want consistency and they want to be able to apply these credits in the future. Now they're not entirely sure if they'll be able to. What's more, they definitely won't be gaining $1.3 trillion in savings from deregulation. This claim is only the benefit half of a cost benefit analysis that the EPA ran on the effects of removing the endange. To calculate this benefit, they claim the industry will save $1.1 trillion over the next 28 years and reduce costs for new vehicles estimated at over $2,400 per vehicle. They also claimed $200 billion of savings from avoiding purchasing electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. But in the same analysis, the EPA also found that leaving the endangerment finding would benefit consumers to the tune of $1.5 trillion in maintenance SA efficient cars. We can argue over any of those numbers, but the point remains, based on the EPA's own accounting, that's actually a net $200 billion industry wide cost for removing the endangerment finding. But to back up here for a sec, the largest effect of rescinding the endangerment finding likely won't be felt by the auto industry at all. Remember, the CAFE standards will remain in place and those were built in tandem with GHG emission standards, which means we're going to get some emissions protections for free with the NHTSA's efficiency stand standards being enforced. And ironically, if the NHTSA decides that it won't apply off cycle credits without the EPA calculating them, then cars may actually become more fuel efficient. If they aren't able to apply these credits, then carmakers will have to become more fuel efficient to become fleet compliant in the future. Really, the biggest impacts of the EPA removing the endangerment finding have nothing to do with the auto industry. They have to do with the aviation industry, whose GHG emission standards are also justified by the finding. They have to do with manufacturing facilities and refineries whose GHG thresholds were subject to permitting requirements under the finding. And most importantly, they have to do with power plants. Those are regulated by Obama's Clean Power Plan and its successor rules using the finding to target coal and gas fired plant emissions. Those regulations weren't explicitly repealed by Zaldin's actions. The Thursday moves were technically finalized only to apply to vehicle emissions under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. But the endangerment finding has served as the foundation for these other regulations, meaning the legal basis for enforcing those rules is now seriously weakened. As someone who is convinced by the evidence showing the negative impacts of GHGS on climate and health, this is obviously very concerning for me. And that all brings us back to where we're going to end discussion today, which is the courts. Since that larger concern about enforcement would be moot if the endangerment finding gets upheld, that makes these rulings really, really important. And like Isaac said when we covered this issue in July, I think it's likely that the courts ruled to uphold the endangerment finding for two reasons. First, the EPA didn't ultimately advance a scientific argument for ascending the endangerment findings. When Zeldin announced the proposal to rescind the finding in July, he used a controversial report from a handpicked group of climate skeptics at the Department of Energy to justify the decision. In January, a U.S. district Court ruled that the DOE acted illegally by keeping that group's existence and meanings a secret. By the time it issued its final rule, the EPA had lost its scientific backing, and it did not invoke the controversial group's report to justify its change. That matters because of point two. The Supreme Court has already upheld the legal basis for this finding in its 2007 Massachusetts rolling based on some scientific consensus from the court and from the epa, and that precedent still stands today. What's even more interesting is that the court's recent removal of Chevron deference actually hurts the EPA. Here. With its landmark loper bright ruling, the Supreme Court found that any federal court doesn't have to rely on an agency's expert interpretations when making its ruling. 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. Moving forward, I won't be watching the legal challenges to the endangerment finding to gauge how much the auto industry will change. Other legal challenges, policy changes, and even market forces will have a much larger impact on that sector moving forward. However, I will be watching this challenge very closely for its broader impact on the energy and manufacturing sectors.

[Isaac Saul]

We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Podcast Contributor]

Why Choose a Sleep Number?

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

[Podcast Contributor]

Can I make my site firmer?

[Ari Weitzman]

Can we sleep cooler?

[Podcast Contributor]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on item either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50 off our limited edition bed plus free home delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com well, the.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Holidays have come and gone once again, but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their whole holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.

What do you have to lose?

Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or 180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy see Terms.

[Ari Weitzman]

All right, that is actually it for my very, very lengthy take today. Thank you for sticking with me. We'll bring it over to your questions Answered. Today's question comes from Charles from Columbia, South Carolina, who asks how much of our national debt is carried by NATO members? By this I mean how many treasury bills does France, for instance, have? And is that value something that together could ruin our fragile economy? According to the Peter G. Peterson foundation, most US Debt is held domestically by the Federal Reserve, state and local governments, or commercial banks. As of June 2025, these holdings account for roughly 69% of U.S. national debt. The remaining debt, about $9.1 trillion, is held by foreign entities, including foreign governments and, yes, some of our NATO allies. The amount of public debt held by foreign entities has ballooned over time. In 1970, foreign debt accounted for just the 5% of U.S. debt, and again today it's about 30%. Treasury data shows that the NATO ally that holds the highest amount of U.S. debt is the United Kingdom, with about 889 billion as of November 2025. Among the countries that hold the most U.S. debt, seven are Nano members, and they hold a combined $2.97 trillion in debt. France holds $376 billion. Japan, an ally but not a NANO member, holds the most U.S. debt of any foreign government at 1.2 trillion. It's extremely unlikely that these debt holdings could cause significant ruin to the US Economy on their own. For one thing, these foreign governments own U.S. debt because they see the U.S. as a safe, stable investment. Threats to that investment would harm their economies as well as ours. However, that doesn't mean that high foreign debt is completely unproblematic. If these foreign governments no longer view the US As a stable investment, a large scale selloff could trigger higher interest rates and and extreme financial insecurity.

[Podcast Contributor]

Thanks Ari Jumping back in with today's under the Radar story, DHS is reportedly subpoenaing tech companies for the identifying data behind accounts that track or criticize ICE and Border Patrol movements. According to four unnamed government officials and tech employees, DHS has submitted hundreds of administrative subpoenas to Discord, Google Meta and Reddit requesting names, email addresses and telephone numbers behind anonymous accounts. The social media companies can choose whether to comply, and Google Meta and Reddit have reportedly complied with some, but not all, requests. Some of the companies have notified users of the requests, allowing them time to fight the subpoenas in court. The New York Times has a story and we will include the link in the show notes finally, here's today's have a nice day story. In late January, 13 year old Austin Appleby, his mother and his two siblings were paddleboarding and kayaking in Western Australia's southwest region when strong winds pushed them far out to sea and flipped their crafts. Unable to overcome the winds, Joanne Appleby said she made the decision to have Austin try to swim to shore and alert authorities. Despite being 2.5 miles from shore, Austin swam for four hours in high wind and waves without a life jacket, eventually making making it to land. Then he had to run another mile down the beach to reach emergency services. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority eventually found Joanne and her two other children and pulled them from the water. Recounting his swim, Austin said, I was just thinking in my head like thinking I was going to make it through, but I was also thinking about all my friends at school. I just said not today, not today, not today. I have to keep on going. ABC News has a story and you can find that link in today's Show.

[Ari Weitzman]

Notes okay everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, you can head over to retango.com and sign up for a membership. You can also get a podcast subscription while you're there. Or you can sign up to our Sunday Podcast, our new Tuesday Once Monthly Press Pass edition. Get bonus content, interviews and much more. You can also find us on social media, on Instagram and X as well as our YouTube channel at Guess Where YouTube. But if you want to listen to us, you just have to stay subscribed so thank you for listening. Peace.

[Isaac Saul]

Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tango and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Better Help Advertiser]

Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet works at the cellular level to rejuvenate you from the inside out, providing real results that include fat focused, sustainable weight loss with no injection needed. NextGen builds on the original Prolon with 100% organic soups and teas, a richer taste and ready to eat meals. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute and backed by top medical centers, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss and energy. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com start that's prolonlife.com start hey, this is Paige from Giggly Squad.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

We all have way too many subscriptions and bills and no good way to manage or track all of them. But now we have Experian. It's the best place to manage your finances because you can connect all of your accounts in one place, track all your spending and you can let Experian do the work of finding ways to save you money. January is the perfect time to get your finances in order. It's the perfect time. New Year Resolution. Let your big financial friend Experian do the work for you. So get started today with the Experian app.

Now guys, it's no use putting it off. The best time for an underwear refresh is now. Tommy John Underwear is designed for a perfect fit that stays put all day. There's zero chafe thanks to four times more stretch than competing brands and their innovative horizontal quickdraw Fly is a game changer with over 30 million pairs sold. There are thousands of men out there more comfortable than you. Don't settle for less. Go to tommyjohn.com today for 25% off your first order with code comfort. That's tommyjohn.com comfort Tommy John comfort Perfected.