The Secret Plan to End U.S. Climate Regulations

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Daily

Episode: The Secret Plan to End U.S. Climate Regulations
Date: February 12, 2026
Host: Michael Barbaro
Guest/Reporter: Lisa Friedman

---

Overview

This episode of “The Daily” explores the Trump administration’s imminent elimination of the Endangerment Finding—the critical legal and scientific foundation for how the United States regulates greenhouse gas emissions. Reporter Lisa Friedman reveals how a covert group of conservative activists and lawyers, over years and across political cycles, meticulously orchestrated this reversal. The episode provides a behind-the-scenes look at their secret planning, the legal and scientific rationale being used, and what the fallout might mean for U.S. climate policy and the global fight against climate change.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What is the Endangerment Finding?

• Definition and Importance

  • The “endangerment finding” is based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA), which determined greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act ([01:50]).
  • The EPA’s subsequent 2009 finding officially recognized six greenhouse gases as dangers to public health and the environment, forming the legal “spine” for all future federal climate regulations.

  “If you repeal the endangerment finding… there is no legal basis or scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([02:57])

---

2. How the Secret Plan Was Hatched

• The Architects

  • Mandy Gunasekara and Jonathan Brightbill: Two longtime conservative lawyers at the center of the effort.
    • Gunasekara: Former aide to Senator Jim Inhofe (who once threw a snowball in the Senate to dispute climate change), pivotal in Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
    • Brightbill: Legal expert on environmental statutes, known for challenging Democratic climate regulations ([05:25]–[08:15]).
  • Russ Vought and Jeff Clark: Higher-profile conservatives, both deeply involved in the anti-regulatory agenda ([10:38]–[11:21]).
    • Clark: Has fought against climate regulation for years and was a notable figure in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

• The Plan and Execution

  • In 2022, they sought funding for a secret campaign to kill the endangerment finding, aiming for about $2 million ([09:06]).
  • Funded by The Heritage Foundation, which later spearheaded “Project 2025”—blueprints for a future Republican administration.
  • By Trump’s return to office, these planners were positioned in government, ready with executive orders and legal strategies.

  “This wasn’t just an accident…This was made possible by a very small group of highly trained conservative lawyers who had spent years working in secret to prepare for the moment when a Republican president could obliterate the government’s ability to regulate climate change.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([04:27])

  “Gunasekara is the aide who handed him [Inhofe] that snowball.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([06:29])

---

3. The Legal and Scientific Rationale for Repeal

• Science Dispute

  • The administration claims that earlier climate science was “too pessimistic” and relies on a secret, handpicked report by climate contrarians ([16:04]).
  • Overwhelming mainstream scientific consensus disagrees; the case for climate threat is “even more ironclad today than it was in 2009.”

• Legal Arguments

  • Argue that the Clean Air Act only authorizes EPA to regulate “local and regional pollutants,” not globally dispersed greenhouse gases ([17:46]).
  • Point to recent Supreme Court trends that strike down environmental regulations requiring “transformational” economic changes.
  • Hope to get the Supreme Court to overturn or weaken Massachusetts v. EPA.

  “This EPA is making the argument that it just does not have the legal authority to deal with those kinds of, let’s call them, global pollutants.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([18:03])

---

4. The Political and Judicial Endgame

• Implementation Steps

  • EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to announce the repeal and is set to “drive a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion” ([20:40]).
  • Environmental groups will sue immediately, aiming for the case to reach the Supreme Court.

  “If that happens, there is a lot of hope in the conservative movement that the landmark climate change case, Massachusetts v. EPA, could be overturned or significantly weakened.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([21:14])

• Potential Consequences

  • If the Endangerment Finding is overturned, no future president could reinstate climate regulations without explicit Congressional authorization ([21:55]).

---

5. Industry and Environmental Fallout

• Industry Response

  • Industries may appreciate regulatory certainty but could also revert to higher pollution if not subject to restrictions ([22:39]).
  • Existing investments in clean technology and public pressure may still drive progress, but unregulated industries could pollute more.

  “There would be a new playing field, and it would not include regulatory restrictions.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([22:39])

• State-Level Efforts Hampered

  • California’s effort to maintain stricter rules was stymied when its federal waiver was rescinded. Other states are similarly limited ([24:24]).

• Global Repercussions

  • U.S. inaction could spark a “domino effect,” prompting countries like China to also slow or abandon emissions reductions, worsening planetary risks ([25:22]):

  “If the U.S. is not doing its part, a lot of countries could start to wonder, why should they?...That could have a really dangerous domino effect for the planet.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([25:22])

  • Consequences include higher temperatures, wildfires, droughts, sea level rise, and increased disease ([26:03]).

---

6. Reflections on the Shift in U.S. Climate Policy

• Rapid Change and Political Persistence

  • The episode closes reflecting on the unexpected speed at which the regulatory consensus on climate has shifted—from bipartisan alignment in the 2000s to today’s orchestrated rollback ([27:22]).
  • This reversal, engineered by a small group of ideologues, is now likely to become formal U.S. policy.

  “Their views on climate change were not in the mainstream, even of their own party. But they were persistent and they did an enormous amount of planning. And that persistence paid off in the form of President Trump...and later today, when the endangerment finding is repealed, it will be, in the words of one climate contrarian, total victory for their cause.”
  — Lisa Friedman ([28:26])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If you repeal the endangerment finding… all of these regulations that stem from it fall like a house of cards.” — Lisa Friedman ([02:57])
• “It was pretty stunning to see how quickly and comprehensively the Trump administration moved to reverse the endangerment finding as soon as President Trump got into office.” — Lisa Friedman ([04:27])
• “Gunasekara is the aide who handed him that snowball.” — Lisa Friedman ([06:29])
• “The reality is, left completely unshackled, as this EPA is about to do, we don't really know how industry will react.” — Lisa Friedman ([23:48])
• “If the U.S. is not doing its part, a lot of countries could start to wonder, why should they? And the most important is China…That could have a really dangerous domino effect for the planet.” — Lisa Friedman ([25:22])
• “Their views on climate change were not in the mainstream, even of their own party…But they were persistent and they did an enormous amount of planning. And that persistence paid off…” — Lisa Friedman ([28:26])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:50]: Explanation of the Endangerment Finding and why it matters
• [04:27]: Behind-the-scenes plan and architects revealed
• [09:06]: How the secret legal strategy was organized and funded
• [16:04]: Scientific and legal arguments used by the Trump administration
• [20:40]: How the finding will be ended and the expected sequence of lawsuits
• [22:39]: Discussion on industry consequences and uncertainty
• [24:24]: Impact on states, especially California
• [25:22]: Global ramifications and scientists’ fears
• [27:22]: Reflection on the historic shift in U.S. climate policy
• [28:26]: The persistence and eventual victory of a small activist group

---

Tone and Language

• The episode maintains a sober yet urgent tone, highlighting both the technical complexities and high political stakes. Lisa Friedman’s language is clear, accessible, and grounded in reporting, while Michael Barbaro guides the conversation with clarifying questions and moral reflection.

---

For listeners who have not heard the episode:
This summary offers a comprehensive, narrative-driven account of the episode, including the legal, political, and scientific battles underpinning the Trump administration’s move to erase U.S. climate regulation. It shines a light on the people, strategies, and potential wide-reaching effects behind what could become a watershed moment in both environmental law and global climate action.

Transcript

[Capital One Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by the Capital One Venture X Card. Venture X offers the premium benefits you expect, like a $300 annual capital one travel credit for less than you expect. Elevate your earn with unlimited double miles on every purchase, bringing you one step closer to your next dream destination. Plus, enjoy access to over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. The Capital One Venture X Card what's in your wallet? Terms apply. Lounge access is subject to change. See capitalone.com for details.

[Michael Barbaro]

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Balbaro. This is the Daily. With a single monumental action expected today, the Trump administration will eliminate its own legal authority to fight climate change. My colleague Lisa Friedman has spent the past few weeks piecing together the inside story of how a small group of activists turned that once improbable goal into reality. It's Thursday, february 12th. Lisa, welcome back to the Daily.

[Lisa Friedman]

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

[Michael Barbaro]

So over the summer, Lisa, you broke the story that the Trump administration was planning to roll back the legal basis for the entire government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Just remind us what that legal basis was and why its elimination would be so consequential.

[Lisa Friedman]

Sure. It's called the endangerment finding, and you can think of it like the spine of America's ability to regulate climate pollutants. Congress never explicitly told the EPA that it could regulate planet warming emissions. But in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark ruling, it's called Massachusetts vs EPA, that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the law. And because EPA is required to set limits required to regulate damaging pollutants, the court told the agency, you need to determine whether these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, others, whether they endanger health and welfare. Two years later, the epa, citing a massive body of scientific evidence, came out with what is now called the endangerment finding that six greenhouse gases do pose a danger to public health and the.

[Michael Barbaro]

Environment and therefore should be regulated and.

[Lisa Friedman]

Therefore should be regulated. So if you think of the endangerment finding as the spine, that is what has allowed for regulations on carbon emissions from automobiles, from power plant smokestacks, methane from oil and gas well leaks. And if you repeal the endangerment finding, as the Trump administration is about to do, then there is no basis, there is no legal basis or scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The government essentially gives up its authority. And not to mix metaphors, but when the endangerment finding goes away, all of these regulations that stem from it fall like a house of cards, right?

[Michael Barbaro]

And during our first conversation when you first explained all this to our listeners, Lisa, you had told me that the efforts to eliminate the endangerment finding and to fundamentally defang the legal framework behind how we regulate greenhouse gases, all of that had unfolded behind closed doors. It was very hard to understand how it had happened and who was involved in it. But now, all these months later, you have reporting on what exactly that behind the scenes effort looked like and notably who was doing this behind the scenes work. So tell us about what you found.

[Lisa Friedman]

So it was pretty stunning to see how quickly and comprehensively the Trump administration moved to reverse the endangerment finding as soon as President Trump got into office. It was one of the early moves in January 2025 to tell the EPA to make a ruling on whether to reconsider this finding. And what our reporting showed was this wasn't just an accident. This wasn't just years of persistence coming to fruition. That happens sometimes in Washington. This was made possible by a very small group of highly trained conservative lawyers who had spent years working in secret to prepare for the moment when a Republican president could obliterate the government's ability to regulate climate change.

[Michael Barbaro]

So who are these people, these conservative lawyers you're talking about?

[Lisa Friedman]

It really starts with two people, Mandy Gynasekara and Jonathan Breitbill. The Green New Deal is not a serious proposal. It reads like Karl Marx's Christmas list and is a Soviet style central planning document calling for a government takeover of the agricultural, transportation, housing and healthcare sectors. Gunasekra has a very long history fighting climate policies, not climate change, climate policies. She used to work for Senator Jim Inhofe, who wrote a book called the Greatest the Global Warming Conspiracy.

[Michael Barbaro]

In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I asked the chair, you know what this is? It's a snowball.

[Lisa Friedman]

And he one day threw a snowball on the Senate floor in February to prove that climate change was not a thing.

[Michael Barbaro]

And that's just from outside here. So it's very, very cold out, very unseasonal. So here, Mr. President, catch this.

[Lisa Friedman]

Gunasekra is the aide who handed him that snowball. And that's one of the things she's pretty well known for in Washington. She enters the first Trump administration where she is instrumental in pushing for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which President Trump eventually did during the Biden administration. She argued strenuously against policies that he put in place to reduce emissions from automobiles and power plants and the rest. From day one, he's held true to that promise to, quote, shut down fossil fuel. And he and the Democrats have taken over 100 actions aimed at making it harder for oil and gas to be developed and delivered to market, essentially making the argument that policies to address climate change are. Are more harmful than climate change itself. It's not climate change that farmers nor Americans should be worried about. It's the policies being pushed in the name of climate change that stand to do far much more damage. Her partner in trying to repeal the endangerment finding was an attorney named Jonathan Brightbill.

[Michael Barbaro]

Before the Supreme Court will be the question of what limits exist in Clean air Act Section 111D.

[Lisa Friedman]

He had served in the Justice Department under the first Trump administration. Everyone we have talked to has described him as a very sharp legal mind who really knows his way around the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act.

[Michael Barbaro]

The hinge issue can really succinctly be stated as follows. Does EPA have the authority to determine the emissions rate based on what's achievable by what EPA thinks is the best system of emissions reduction? Period?

[Lisa Friedman]

And has made the argument in court that Democratic administrations have really overreached in their efforts to impose regulations to address climate change. He was essentially dealing with the downstream effects of the endangerment finding.

[Michael Barbaro]

And it makes your head swim to try and parse through the various clauses and instructions that are contained there.

[Lisa Friedman]

Because of the endangerment finding, EPA has been dealing with a whiplash of regulations. They have been created in Democratic administrations, erased in Republican administrations, and fought in courts the entire time. Withdrawing the endangerment finding eliminates this situation entirely. And that's what Gunasekhara and Brightbill plotted to do.

[Michael Barbaro]

And how do they actually go about doing that?

[Lisa Friedman]

So in the summer of 2022, Gunasekra and Brightbill start seeking funding for a big new project. They want to create a secret operation to kill the endangerment finding. They pitched conservative organizations. They asked for about $2 million for the ability to work on scientific studies and research from science scientists who disagree with the mainstream science. They would start laying out the legal case for repealing the endangerment finding. All of these things were things that could be used by a next Republican president. They hoped Donald Trump. On day one, they did eventually receive funding from a conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage foundation would go on to lead Project 2025, the blueprint for the next Republican president. And Mandy Gunasekra wrote the EPA chapter for Project 2025.

[Michael Barbaro]

So these two lawyers, Gunasekra and Brightbill, they are ensuring that this cause of rolling back environmental regulations, of going after the endangerment finding, that it gets taken up by a major conservative think tank in Heritage with a ton of influence in Republican politics.

[Lisa Friedman]

Exactly right. Then in tandem, we have two other lawyers, much more high profile figures who are working in their own right to bring down the entanglement finding.

[Michael Barbaro]

And who is that?

[Lisa Friedman]

Russ Vogt and Jeff Clark, much better known, much better known figures. Russell Vogt, as we know, during the Biden years, starts the, starts a think tank of his own, the center for Renewing America, where they were keeping the MAGA movement alive. Jeff Clark has been in the fight against the endangerment finding for decades.

[Michael Barbaro]

Epa, it seems to me, is too big. It's bloated on stimulus money and it seems hell bent on expansion.

[Lisa Friedman]

Before there ever was an endangerment finding, he went to court to argue that the EPA doesn't have and shouldn't have the legal authority to address greenhouse gases.

[Michael Barbaro]

It doesn't matter to EPA if it's absurd, if its regulations are going to lead to absurd consequences that inflict massive harm on the national economy.

[Lisa Friedman]

He loses that. And that, from everything we have been told, is really a motivating factor for years with Jeff Clark, what he sees as righting a wrong.

[Michael Barbaro]

Of course, the other thing Jeff Clark is known for, and I think a lot of our listeners will remember this, is that at the end of the first Trump term, he emerges from deep within the Justice Department as an ally of President Trump in trying to overturn the 2020 election. So much so that Trump briefly considers making him the acting Attorney General. And that so scares people at the Department of Justice that many of them threaten to quit if it happens. President backs down, but Clark becomes known as a major election denier.

[Lisa Friedman]

That's right. And so by late 2022, 2023, Jeff Clark and Russ Vogt are ensconced in a row house in Capitol Hill that Vogt had complained was infested with pigeons and drafting executive orders for a new president to use to eliminate climate protections. And then at the same time, Gunasekra and Brightbill are collecting what they have called an arsenal of information to support the repeal of the endangerment finding. Sure enough, President Trump wins the presidency. Three out of four of the people that we're talking about here, Bright, Bill, Clark and Vote, go back into the administration and are able to hand the President a very clear roadmap for the biggest climate deregulation in American history. And that's what's being followed right now.

[Michael Barbaro]

We'll Be right back.

[Lisa Friedman]

Foreign.

[Capital One Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by the Capital One Venture X Card. Venture X offers the premium benefits you expect, like a $300 annual Capital One travel credit for less than you expect. Elevate your earn with unlimited double miles on every purchase, bringing you one step closer to your next dream destination. Plus, enjoy access to over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. The Capital One Venture X Card what's in your wallet? Terms apply. Lounge access is subject to change. See capitalone.com for details.

[Vanguard Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by Vanguard. As we step into a new year, it's the perfect time for all the advisors listening to think about how to set your clients up for success. One way to do that is to level up your fixed income strategy. But bonds are tricky. The market is huge, rates shift and risks hide in plain sight. That's why having a partner with scale and expertise matters. Vanguard brings both. The bond market is complex, and it's not something one person or a small team can realistically keep up with. Vanguard's been in the game a long time, and their scale gives them a serious edge. They're able to invest across all kinds of sectors, maturities and geographies, which means they can spot and act on opportunities that others might miss. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for [e-mail] audio that's vanguard.com audio all investing is subject to risk. Vanguard Marketing Corporation Distributor so Lisa, once.

[Michael Barbaro]

A bunch of these advocates of repealing the endangerment finding end up inside the White House and in a position to actually repeal it. What's the technical case? What's the legal case that they make to try to do that?

[Lisa Friedman]

So remember I told you that the Obama administration wrote the endangerment finding because the Supreme Court said in order to regulate these gases, you need to determine that these are harmful to human health and the environment. So now this administration, the Trump administration, is looking at that finding and they're saying the science that you used is something we don't agree with. And they're saying the legal rationale is problematic.

[Michael Barbaro]

So start with the science. Why do they dispute the science and is it compelling?

[Lisa Friedman]

So they have made the case that the predictions that were made about the impacts of climate change back in 2009 were too pessimistic. Their evidence to support that claim is a report that five handpicked climate contrarians wrote in secret for the Department of Energy last year. It was designed to support the repeal of the endangerment finding and no Surprise to anyone. The conclusion was that climate change threats have been overblown.

[Michael Barbaro]

Interesting.

[Lisa Friedman]

And what multitudes of scientists have told us are two things. Yeah, the planet is better off than what was predicted in 2009 because the international community has acted not enough, not fast enough, but has done work towards reducing emissions. But what's also true is that every bit of emissions that enters the atmosphere leads to more warming, which leads to more health impacts, and all of the things that we know continue to endanger human health and the environment. Scientists say that that research is even more ironclad today than it was in 2009. Then there's the Trump administration's legal arguments for repealing the endangerment finding. There's a couple. Take a step back. The endangerment finding that flowed from a law, the 1970 Clean Air Act. This EPA is arguing that the Clean Air act only allows EPA to regulate what it calls local and regional pollutants. Things like soot from industrial sources, factories, power plants, stuff that's really bad when you breathe it in. Greenhouse gas emissions don't work that way. Carbon dioxide, methane, all these gases, they disperse into the atmosphere, they trap heat, they linger from decades to centuries and alter the climate. Hmm. So this EPA is making the argument that it just does not have the legal authority to deal with those kinds of, let's call them, global pollutants.

[Michael Barbaro]

Interesting. So their argument is that the endangerment finding misunderstands the Clean Air act and thinks that you can or regulate greenhouse gases that by definition are not local. They end up in the sky, they end up far from their original source, and therefore the endangerment finding is not legally sound.

[Lisa Friedman]

Exactly.

[Michael Barbaro]

Do lawyers agree with that argument?

[Lisa Friedman]

They're mixed. I mean, there are some conservative lawyers who think that the EPA has a really good case to make. You know, environmental attorneys that we've spoken to have said that the George W. Bush administration made similar arguments to defend its decision not to issue an endangerment finding, and lost. But there's another argument that's linked. Since 2009, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against environmental regulations that require big transformational changes to industry and the economy. And so the Trump administration saying, based on that new legal landscape and the fact that so many of the regulations that have stemmed from the endangerment finding require, in their view, sweeping technology, economic changes, they're arguing that the source, the endangerment finding, should be overturned.

[Michael Barbaro]

Fascinating. If so many regulations that flow from the endangerment finding eventually get struck down by the Supreme Court, then the fruit of those regulations, the finding itself should itself be seen as illegal unless Congress.

[Lisa Friedman]

Explicitly gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which after decades, they have never done.

[Michael Barbaro]

And this Congress is very unlikely to ever give it that power.

[Lisa Friedman]

Definitely not.

[Michael Barbaro]

Okay, so now that we understand the Trump administration's arguments here, just explain how they're going to turn those arguments into the end of the endangerment finding. What do we expect the administration to do to end the finding?

[Lisa Friedman]

So what we expect is on Thursday, the administrator of the epa, Lee Zeldin, who has said that he plans to drive a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion, his words will announce the end of the endangerment finding. But it's not the end of the story. Meaning environmental groups, states, are going to immediately sue. And this will be played out in the courts over the next several years.

[Michael Barbaro]

And what do we expect will happen in the courts? And just how high up in the courts is this likely to go?

[Lisa Friedman]

Well, that's the thing. We know what the group that we've been talking about, the folks who laid out this roadmap, hope to see, and that is that this case gets before the Supreme Court. And if that happens, there is a lot of hope in the conservative movement that the landmark climate change case, Massachusetts vs EPA, could be overturned or significantly weakened.

[Michael Barbaro]

So their hope is that the endangerment finding ends up before the Supreme Court in such a way that a conservative majority of the Supreme Court would overturn the original Supreme Court ruling that allows the endangerment finding to have ever come into existence.

[Lisa Friedman]

You hit the nail on the head. And if that happens, a future president would not be able to reinstate regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions unless and until Congress explicitly said, go do that.

[Michael Barbaro]

And let's presume for just a moment, Lisa, that our legal system does allow the endangerment finding to go away. I want to talk about the repercussions of that on the environment, on industry. And let's just start with the impact on industry that now operates under these regulations that I presume, suddenly would start to go away.

[Lisa Friedman]

Well, one thing that industry would get is the certainty that it has said it always wants. Right. It would know that it would not face what has been a decade and a half of whiplash. Democrats come in and start to regulate power plants and automobiles and the rest. And then a Republican administration comes in and removes or weakens them. There would be a new playing field, and it would not include regulatory restrictions. So the question is, will this lead to industries polluting more?

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[Lisa Friedman]

And, yeah, we don't know. I mean, it is certainly possible that because companies have already put billions of dollars into clean technology, whether it's for EVs or, or pollution controls in power plants, that they will continue to do so. There's also public pressure. And, you know, companies very much care about how they are seen and whether they are stepping up to a challenge like climate change. But the reality is left completely unshackled, as this EPA is about to do. We don't really know how industry will react.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, given that uncertainty, what would the elimination of the endangerment finding mean for the environment and for climate change writ large? Is that suddenly now pretty much in the hands of industry?

[Lisa Friedman]

It's such a hard question to answer. I mean, yes, and part of the reason why is that the Trump administration has already pretty effectively restricted some of the things that states can do to address climate change on their own.

[Michael Barbaro]

Like what?

[Lisa Friedman]

California is the only state in the country that can set more stringent environmental regulations than the federal government. It needs a waiver to do that. California tried to set even stricter automobile emissions rules. They had a plan to eliminate the sales of combustion engine vehicles, you know, in the next decade or so. But the Trump administration and Congress rescinded that waiver. I can't see California getting another waiver, at least during the next three years. So that really ties the hands of not just California, but other like minded states that might want to do something very ambitious on automobiles.

[Michael Barbaro]

So in the absence of major new state regulation and a federal government that doesn't want to regulate most of these greenhouse emissions at all, what do scientists say that the world starts to look like?

[Lisa Friedman]

Scientists are worried. I mean, the United States is the largest historic emitter of climate change. It's the second largest annual emitter of carbon pollution and greenhouse gases. If the US Is not doing its part, a lot of countries could start to wonder, why should they? And the most important is China. And that's the big fear that a lot have relayed to me. If the United States is successful in not just failing to reduce its own emissions, but convincing other countries that they don't need to either, scientists feel that could have a really dangerous domino effect for the planet.

[Michael Barbaro]

And where do those dominoes eventually fall?

[Lisa Friedman]

I mean, they fall in more severe rising temperatures and more droughts and hotter droughts, more frequent and severe wildfires, rising sea levels from melting glaciers that are threatening coastal communities. These kinds of changes also directly damage human health, scientists tell us. They damage food security, water supplies. They lead to an increase in vector borne Diseases, Lyme disease, dengue. There's a whole sweeping landscape of impacts that scientists are warning will get worse if emissions continue to go up.

[Michael Barbaro]

I feel like what's quite remarkable about the story that you've told here is how quickly this country's relationship to greenhouse gases, the idea that they create climate change, and that this is something to be addressed by the government. How quickly, really, just in a decade and a half, that's changed. If you go back to the mid early 2000s when the endangerment finding was written, it seemed like much of the business and even political world was starting to become aligned in this sense that there was a problem and that something could be done about it.

[Lisa Friedman]

Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the House. And I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican, and.

[Michael Barbaro]

I used to be Speaker. I'm sure you remember the famous ad where Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are sitting on a couch together in front of the Capitol.

[Lisa Friedman]

We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?

[Michael Barbaro]

No, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change. And there wasn't always going to be ever, of course, agreement about what to do about it. Businesses weren't thrilled about some of the costs entailed and changing their conduct, but a lot of people got on board with the idea that something needed to be done. And yet, as you've explained here, a very persistent group of ideologically aligned climate change skeptics kept at it through Republican and Democratic presidencies and have succeeded in making their view, which isn't necessarily the nation's view, become the government's official policy. And that's something to behold.

[Lisa Friedman]

It really is. And one of the things that became clear as we were reporting this story out is that this group of conservative lawyers, their views on climate change were not in the mainstream, even of their own party. But they were persistent and they did an enormous amount of planning. And that persistence paid off in the form of President Trump, who, you know, we all know his views on climate change, calls it a hoax, calls it a scam. And when President Trump was elected, these two forces joined and they were ready to get this anti climate agenda done. And later today, when the endangerment finding is repealed, it will be, in the words of one climate contrarian, total victory for their cause.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, Lisa, thank you very much.

[Lisa Friedman]

Thanks so much.

[Michael Barbaro]

We'll be right back.

[Capital One Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by the Capital One Venture X card. Venture X offers the premium benefits you expect, like a $300 annual Capital One travel credit for for less than you expect. Elevate your earn with unlimited double miles on every purchase, bringing you one step closer to your next dream destination. Plus, enjoy access to over 1000 airport lounges worldwide. The Capital One Venture X Card what's in your wallet Terms apply. Lounge access is subject to change. See capitalone.com for details.

[Vanguard Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by Vanguard. As we step into a new year, it's the perfect time for all the advisors listening to think about how to set your clients up for success. One way to do that is to level up your fixed income strategy. But bonds are tricky. The market is huge, rates shift and risks hide in plain sight. That's why having a partner with scale and expertise matters. Vanguard brings both the bond market is complex and it's not something one person or a small team can realistically keep up with. Vanguard's been in the game a long time, and their scale gives them a serious edge. They they're able to invest across all kinds of sectors, maturities and geographies, which means they can spot and act on opportunities that others might miss. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for [e-mail] audio that's vanguard.com audio all investing is subject to risk. Vanguard Marketing Corporation Distributor.

[Michael Barbaro]

Here'S what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, the mystery surrounding the federal government's decision to abruptly shut down the airspace around El Paso, Texas, originally for 10 days, appeared to be solved. The Times reports that the closure was announced after officials from U.S. customs and Border Protection decided to try out a new anti drone laser technology in order to shoot at what they believed was a drone from Mexican drug cartels. But the border protection officials failed to give officials from the Federal Aviation Administration enough time to assess the risks of the new technology on commercial planes. That prompted the FAA to shut down the airspace before quickly reversing their own decision. Decision and how many of Epstein's co conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?

[Lisa Friedman]

First you showed it.

[Michael Barbaro]

I find it. How many have you? Excuse me, I'm gonna answer the question. Answer my question. No, I'm gonna answer the question the way I want to answer the question. During a combative hearing on Wednesday, Democratic members of Congress sharply criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi for her department's handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and her repeated efforts to prosecute enemies of the President. You've turned the People's Department of Justice.

[Lisa Friedman]

Into Trump's instrument of revenge.

[Michael Barbaro]

Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time he tells you.

[Lisa Friedman]

To go after James Comey.

[Michael Barbaro]

Letitia James Bondi forcefully defended her actions, frequently interrupted lawmakers and at times insulted them, as she did to Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland when he instructed Bondi to stop filibustering in response to questions from Democrats.

[Lisa Friedman]

I told you about that attorney general before you started.

[Michael Barbaro]

You don't tell me. Oh, I did tell you because we.

[Lisa Friedman]

Saw what you did in this Senate will be in order.

[Michael Barbaro]

Today's episode was produced by Eric Krupke, Michael Simon Johnson and Anna Foley. It was edited by Maria Byrne and Devin Taylor, contains music by Alisha Itu, Marion Lozano and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the Daily I'm Michael Albaro. See you tomorrow.

[Capital One Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by the Capital One Venture X Card. Venture X offers the premium benefits you expect, like a $300 annual capital one Travel Credit for less than you expect. Elevate your earn with unlimited double miles on every purchase, bringing you one step closer to your next dream destination. Plus, enjoy access to over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. The Capital One Venture X Card what's in your wallet? Terms apply. Lounge access is subject to change. See capitalone.com for details.