Trump administration eliminates greenhouse gas regulations

Summary

---

NPR Politics Podcast

Episode: Trump administration eliminates greenhouse gas regulations
Date: February 16, 2026
Host: Tamara Keith
Guests: Ashley Lopez (Political Correspondent), Jeff Brady (Climate Correspondent)

---

Episode Overview

This episode unpacks the Trump administration's sudden repeal of the EPA's "endangerment finding," the foundational regulation that, for nearly two decades, enabled federal control of greenhouse gases. NPR’s politics and climate reporters detail what this means for industries, consumers, U.S. climate policy, and the international landscape. The conversation explores the ideology behind the move, its legal and political implications, and how Americans perceive climate change today.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What is the "Endangerment Finding" and Why It Matters

• Background:
  The EPA's endangerment finding, established during the Obama administration under the Clean Air Act, allowed regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the grounds they “endanger public health and welfare.”
  • Originally regulated vehicle emissions, then expanded to power and oil/gas sectors.
  • Served as the legal backbone for nearly all federal climate action.
• Repeal Announcement:
  President Trump called it the “single largest deregulatory action in American history” ([01:47]).

  "We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers." — President Trump ([01:47])

---

2. Immediate Impact: Climate Regulations and Transportation

• Regulatory Rollback:

  • End of Federal GHG Rules on Cars: With the finding repealed, U.S. climate regulations on vehicles are immediately void ([02:38]).
  • Broader Implications: Could expand to power plants and other sectors.
  • International Consequence: The U.S.—formerly the largest historical emitter—now appears to be “giving up” on climate regulations ([02:38]).

• Ashley Lopez on Ideological Roots:

  • Trump has long labeled climate change a “hoax” and fought environmental regulation.
  • Move aligns with classic conservative and Reagan-era deregulation, purportedly to fight inflation and stimulate the economy ([03:21]).
  • The move was explicitly set out in Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for federal policy ([03:21]).

  "The whole premise of deregulating industry is that it combats inflation and stimulates the economy. Two things that the White House really needs to happen right now." — Ashley Lopez ([03:21])

---

3. Who’s Behind the Push?

• Not Just Oil & Gas:
  • Oil and gas majors have shifted positions, supporting cleaner standards and the Paris Agreement to preserve their global business, especially natural gas exports to Europe ([04:35]).
  • The repeal is instead driven by ideologically conservative actors, not the big oil companies per se.

  "Those big oil companies are concerned that US Natural gas might get a bad reputation as more polluting if you don't have regulations." — Jeff Brady ([05:16])

---

4. Industry, Consumer, and Market Impacts

• Auto Industry:
  • Mixed perspectives: Manufacturing profit leans truck-heavy, but many automakers have invested heavily in EVs, which now face less regulatory pressure ([05:56]).
  • Repeal creates uncertainty: “If I was looking through some of the comments for this regulation, and you see companies saying right in there like, we don't like uncertainty... now you're kind of giving us a little chaos here.” — Jeff Brady ([06:33])
• Electric Vehicles (EVs), Start-Stop Features, & Consumer Costs:
  • Without GHG standards, the U.S. shift to electric cars will slow down—other countries will move faster ([06:48]).
  • Start-Stop Controversy: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin promised “more consumer freedom and choice, and not having these climate participation trophies…for installing that, quite frankly, stupid Start Stop feature” ([07:37]).

    “Not having these climate participation trophies given out to manufacturers for installing that, quite frankly, stupid Start Stop feature.” — Lee Zeldin, via Jeff Brady ([07:37])

• Affordability Claims & Skepticism:
  • White House claims families will save $2,400 on new cars, SUVs, and trucks ([09:20]).
  • Reporters are skeptical: upfront savings vs. lifetime costs, especially factoring in fuel/electricity expenses ([09:58]).

    “But when you start factoring in the energy costs, buying gas all those years or electricity those years, those cars can be cheaper over the life of the car…” — Jeff Brady ([09:58])

---

5. Legal Showdown & Future Precedents

• Supreme Court Precedent:
  The 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision allowed regulation of GHGs via the Clean Air Act. Conservatives aim to overturn this, seeking stricter limits on agency authority ([12:25]).
  • The courts, now more conservative, are less likely to uphold broad agency regulation without direct Congressional action.

  "They want big, sprawling regulations like climate regulations to have more specific direction from Congress. They don't want agencies going out there on their own and testing the boundaries of their power." — Jeff Brady ([13:14])

---

6. What’s Next? The Domino Effect

• Power Plants:
  • Next likely target: Coal and gas-fired power plants, the second-largest U.S. GHG sources.
  • Proposed to eliminate these federal GHG limits as well ([13:40]).
  • If no federal action, states may set independent climate policies, leading to a patchwork system ([14:19]).

    “Without federal regulation, this could potentially open the door for states having to ask these questions themselves and figure out rules on a state by state level.” — Ashley Lopez ([14:19])

• International Leadership:
  • Allies and global rivals—especially China—are forging ahead on climate and clean energy, while the U.S. steps back ([14:58]).

  “China is all in on green energy and all in on electric cars, which is an interesting fork in the road here between the United States and one of our largest global rivals.” — Tamara Keith ([14:58])

---

7. The Politics & Public Opinion

• From Bipartisan Agreement to Deep Division:
  • In 2008, both parties’ candidates acknowledged climate change and supported federal action. Today, even consensus on climate science has fractured ([15:46]).
• Polls & Generational Change:
  • Recent AP polling: Belief in manmade climate change dipped from 2024 to 2025. Younger Republicans show more concern than older ones; living through disasters boosts concern ([16:17]).

    "Nine out of 10 people, whenever they live through a natural disaster in this country, they attribute some of that to climate change, which is really interesting." — Ashley Lopez ([16:17])

  • Salience in Elections: Even among believers, climate may not always rank high on issue priority, especially if leaders aren’t elevating the issue in public discourse ([17:38]).

    “So for right now, though, it does look like there is a little bit of a dip in belief that this is a problem that we should change.” — Ashley Lopez ([17:38])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• President Trump:
  "We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers." ([01:47])

• Jeff Brady on Industry Uncertainty:
  “Getting rid of a regulation that's been in place for about 17 years, that creates a lot of uncertainty for these companies. ... Now you're kind of giving us a little chaos here.” ([06:33])

• Ashley Lopez on Deregulation:
  "The whole premise of deregulating industry is that it combats inflation and stimulates the economy. Two things that the White House really needs to happen right now." ([03:21])

• Lee Zeldin (EPA):
  "Not having these climate participation trophies given out to manufacturers for installing that, quite frankly, stupid Start Stop feature." ([07:37])

• Jeff Brady on Courts and Agency Power:
  “They want big, sprawling regulations like climate regulations to have more specific direction from Congress. They don't want agencies going out there on their own and testing the boundaries of their power.” ([13:14])

• Ashley Lopez on Public Attitudes:
  “Nine out of 10 people, whenever they live through a natural disaster in this country, they attribute some of that to climate change, which is really interesting.” ([16:17])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Time | |------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | What is the Endangerment Finding? Background | 00:31–01:39 | | Trump announces repeal | 01:47–02:18 | | Industry responses & motivations | 04:35–05:48 | | Auto industry impact & consumer consequences | 05:56–06:48 | | Start-Stop feature and affordability claims | 07:26–09:58 | | Legal showdown: Supreme Court and regulatory future | 12:02–13:29 | | Power plant regulation & federal/state implications | 13:40–14:58 | | International context: China, global leadership | 14:58–15:46 | | Political landscape & public opinion | 15:46–17:38 |

---

Conclusion

The EPA’s endangerment finding is no more, representing a seismic shift in federal climate regulation. The episode highlights the ideological, industrial, legal, and international stakes, while unpacking public perception and political maneuvering. As the U.S. steps back, global and generational shifts ensure the climate debate—and its consequences—are far from over.

---

Transcript

[A]

This message comes from Carvana, who makes buying and financing your next car easy. Thousands of vehicles, terms up front and 100% online. Even get it delivered to your door. Buy your car the easy way with Carvana. Delivery fee may apply.

[B]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Tamara Keith.

[A]

I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics.

[B]

And NPR climate correspondent Jeff Brady is also here with us. Welcome, Jeff.

[C]

Hey. Thank you.

[B]

And today on the show, for the past 16 years, the federal government has regulated climate warming emissions through something called the endangerment finding. The Trump administration just obliterated that. Jeff, give us some background to help us understand how we got here.

[C]

Sure. You know, the US we don't have like some big law that regulates climate pollution here. Democrats did try to get one passed in 2009 a while ago, but there was a lot of opposition, you know, fossil fuel industry, all that. So the Obama administration decided to regulate greenhouse gases, the greenhouse gases that are warming the climate, through a section of the Clean Air Act. And under that law, the EPA found that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. First they regulated climate pollution from cars, then expanded that to the power industry and the oil and gas industry. That's the endangerment finding. You just mentioned that greenhouse gases are warming the climate, endangering people's health. And for almost 17 years, that's been the basis for the federal government's work to address climate change.

[B]

And that brings us to last week, the Trump administration repealed the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding. Here was President Trump at the White.

[C]

House announcing it, the single largest deregulatory action in American history. That's a big statement in American history. And I think we can add the words by far. Under the process just completed by the epa, we are officially terminating the so called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.

[B]

Jeff, this is the latest in a long line of moves by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach. So what happens as a result of terminating the endangerment finding?

[C]

Yeah, well, right now it means there are no more climate pollution regulations on cars. That's what this applies to here in the beginning. And that's important because transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in the US could apply to other things later. And of course, there's that big picture out there of the whole world trying to reduce our climate pollution. And the US has been the largest historical emitter. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases now. And so here you've got the largest historical emitter in the world giving up essentially on climate regulations.

[B]

And, Ashley, this is very in line with everything President Trump has been promising for years.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, he has called climate change a hoax and he's been pretty antagonistic towards environmental regulations for a while now. So regardless of where this is coming from, this was sort of like an inevitable thing. I mean, the other thing that's going on here is that deregulation is actually one of those old school conservative things that the Trump administration has really embraced. Now, in both terms, obviously, this is like a hallmark of the Reagan era. The whole premise of deregulating industry is that it combats inflation and stimulates the economy. Two things that the White House really needs to happen right now. I mean, there's considerable debate on whether that would actually happen as a result of this. But I should say to that end, this push to repeal the endangerment finding was also an explicit objective in Project 2025. For those who don't remember, this is that conservative blueprint for overhauling the federal government that Trump said during the campaign he wouldn't enact, but has actually been pretty steadily implemented his second term. So this is not terribly surprising, although it seems like it would have sweeping implications.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, this was a real mission accomplished moment for President Trump and his administration. But, Jeff, I wanna know who's behind this? Who has been pushing for this change? It obviously didn't just spring from the President's mind alone.

[C]

Right. This is coming mostly from ideologically conservative folks. And, you know, we do have that history of the oil and gas industry spending a long time stoking misinformation about climate change. A lot of big oil companies with names most of us would recognize, in the end, they came to support the goals in the Paris climate agreement, and they weren't pushing for these changes. You can't just simply say, like, oh, the oil industry wanted this. This was the ideologically conservative folks. For the oil industry. Their business models have changed. You know, they used to be just all about oil and cars, and now natural gas is a huge part of their business. And that puts them in the electricity generation business. And they want to be able to also export natural gas, especially to places like Europe, So they don't take gas from Russia. Europe has still climate regulations. They have very specific things they want from products coming into their company. Those big oil companies are concerned that US Natural gas might get A bad reputation as more polluting if you don't have regulations like this in place to show other countries that we're doing the most that we can to reduce this climate pollution.

[B]

So those are energy oil companies. What about the car industry that President Trump has shouted them out as benefiting from this?

[C]

Yeah, and that's really mixed because there are certainly some companies that want to be out there selling trucks because they're the most profitable things to produce. But there are companies that have invested a lot of money in electric vehicles, and this is going to slow down that process of transitioning to electric vehicles in this country. So getting rid of a regulation that's been in place for about 17 years, that creates a lot of uncertainty for these companies. And if I was looking through some of the comments for this regulation, and you see companies saying right in there like, we don't like uncertainty, and at least having this in place creates some certainty. And now you're kind of giving us a little chaos here.

[B]

So we know sort of what this means for industries. What does it mean for consumers, for regular people.

[C]

Yeah, well, that whole thing about electric vehicles, you know, we were kind of on this track with the Biden administration, had pollution limits on vehicles. Those were eliminated along with the endangerment finding. And those limits were really strict. And carmakers could only meet them if more than half of the vehicles they sell in just a few years were electric. So if we're going to notice anything, we're going to notice that transition to electric vehicles is happening more slowly than it might have otherwise. So while you have other governments around the world encouraging their citizens to use cleaner transportation, that change is just going to happen more slowly in the U.S.

[B]

Jeff, when we were talking about this before we came into the studio, you mentioned something about, like, the mechanism on a car that makes it stop idling at a stoplight.

[C]

Yes. You're talking about the Start Stop feature that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has talked a lot about since last week when this change was announced, just the day after he was in North Carolina at a Toyota dealership. And here's what he had to say. So we're talking about increased investments, resetting CAFE standards, getting rid of electric vehicle mandates, and now yesterday's decision that will have benefits that range from $2,400 less for a new vehicle to more consumer freedom and choice, and not having these climate participation trophies given out to manufacturers for installing that, quite frankly, stupid Start.

[B]

Stop featuring cars that a lot of American.

[C]

Okay, so we could spend a whole show, I think on what he just said there. But let's focus in on that start stop feature. I think most of us know what this is. It's where when you put on the brake and you stop at a red light and the car just turns itself off, that is an efficiency feature. Instead of idling at the stoplight or at a drive through, the car turns off, and then it turns back on when you let your foot off the brake. And that was designed to use less fuel and to put fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And carmakers used to get credits for installing this feature on their cars, and that would count toward their goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Zeldin said a lot of people hated this feature. I don't know, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

[B]

I don't know. As a driver, it's like, kind of weird, but also kind of like, yeah, I am happy to buy less gas. Ashley, what do you make of the way that the administration is talking about this policy change?

[A]

Well, their big argument is that this will lower prices. In a statement, the White House said that American families will save an average of over $2,400 on new cars, SUVs and trucks, which is a pretty big claim. But, you know, the White House does want to pivot to talking about affordability. Those midterms, they're feeling closer and closer, and the closer they get, the more you're going to hear about the president talking about lower prices on stuff. And as everyone remembers, one of the things that got more during the pandemic was cars. And so whether or not this manifests into anything is an open question. But I guess it is interesting that that is one way in which they're selling this to Americans.

[C]

Yeah, and there's a lot of skepticism about that $2,400 number that was mentioned. They're really talking about upfront prices here. But that's not all we pay to use a car. EVs and hybrids do cost more upfront. But when you start factoring in the energy costs, buying gas all those years or electricity those years, those cars can be cheaper over the life of the car. So it's not just that upfront cost that's important here.

[B]

All right, well, we are going to take a quick break and we're going to have more.

[C]

In a moment, Bad Bunny gave one of the greatest super bowl halftime performances of all time. We'll tell you why and what this performance means at this particular political moment. Listen to a recap on Pop Culture Happy hour via the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

What allows Olympic figure skaters to land a jump on ice that most of us couldn't land on solid ground? Then how do snowboarders defy gravity? Maybe even better than Cynthia Erivo. Come learn the science that allows Olympic athletes to push the boundaries of what the human body is capable of with shortwave. Listen in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast.

[B]

On NPR's Wildcard podcast, Oscar nominee Wagner Mora on keeping his values on his path to success.

[C]

There were moments I was like, oh.

[A]

I really need that money, man.

[C]

You know?

[A]

But I'm like, I can't do this.

[C]

Yeah, I can't do that because otherwise I'll be miserable.

[B]

Watch or listen to that wild card conversation on the NPR app or on YouTube at NPR Wildcard, I'm Jesse Thorne.

[C]

On Bullseye, Yahya Abdul Mateen ii and the most surprising thing he learned after receiving one of the highest honors in acting. I'm so grateful that it happened at that time because it did not make.

[A]

Me happy at all.

[C]

We'll get into that and his many roles playing various superheroes and villains. That's Bullseye. Find us in the NPR [e-mail] or wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

And we're back. And we've been talking about a change the Trump administration made that effectively ends the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Jeff In 2007, the U.S. supreme Court weighed in on this issue in a decision that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Presumably this decision by the Trump administration is going to be heavily litigated. No?

[C]

Yes, it absolutely will be. And that was a big case for regulating greenhouse gases. It was called Massachusetts vs EPA, gave each EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that are warming the climate under the Clean Air Act. A lot of conservatives didn't like that opinion. They think the Clean Air act should be more for local and regional pollution. Some have been gunning for that decision really ever since, and they want to see it overturned. And of course, in the meantime, you've got courts, including the Supreme Court, that have become more conservative. They've become also more suspicious of agencies exercising power. They want big, sprawling regulations like climate regulations to have more specific direction from Congress. They don't want agencies going out there on their own and testing the boundaries of their power. So the Trump administration now is really setting up this big legal fight that if everything that the Trump administration done is upheld, could make it very difficult for future presidents to regulate climate pollution. Certainly without specific legislation from Congress, which.

[B]

Doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Yeah. So, Jeff, what other dominoes are you expecting might fall as a result of this endangerment finding being eliminated?

[C]

The big one has to do with power plants around the country. We're talking about coal and gas fired power plants. They're the second largest source of greenhouse gases in the country after transportation. The endangerment finding also gave the Obama and Biden administrations the authority that they needed to regulate climate pollution from power plants. Those regulations have gone back and forth because lots of big challenges there. But now the Trump administration has proposed getting rid of all limits on power plants, too, for climate pollution. There's a proposed regulation that's out there, and we expect to see a final regulation pretty soon.

[A]

Yeah. And, you know, without federal regulation, this could potentially open the door for states having to ask these questions themselves and figure out rules on a state by state level. I mean, that all depends on how everything shakes out legally. There's another wrinkle in this, which is, you know, this is another instance of the United States losing authority and looking sort of inconsistent on a big issue. A lot of our allies are prioritizing battling climate change. And, you know, it was last month that the United States yet again pulled back from the Paris agreement. So this is another situation in which the United States on a global scale is playing a smaller role internationally when it comes to, like, a big issue.

[B]

Well, and China is all in on green energy and all in on electric cars, which is an interesting fork in the road here between the United States and one of our largest global rivals.

[C]

And you hear that from environmentalists all the time. They want to try to use President Trump's own language to accomplish their policy objectives. And so they'll talk about energy dominance in terms of things like offshore wind, which of course, the President really doesn't like. Solar power and electric vehicles. Those are all places where China is making huge investments and big advancements. There are a lot of countries around the world where you go and you'll see Chinese EVs everywhere. Chinese EVs that you can't buy in the United States.

[B]

Ashley, I am thinking Back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when both major party candidates believed climate change was a problem and that the federal government should address it. And, you know, the Republican candidate, John McCain, had a more free market solution, but now we're at a point where there isn't even agreement on whether climate change, climate change is a problem, which is a remarkable shift in a relatively short period of time on the political stage. Where are voters on this?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, I will say it's not surprising, right? Like the leader of the Republican Party has been calling climate change a hoax for 10 years, at least. That changes attitudes. And there's some polling on this. So last year, the Associated Press released some polling specifically looking at American views on climate change in policy. And from 2024 to 2025, attitudes have changed. There's been a dip in belief that climate change is man driven. Interestingly, even though Democrats have consistently made up a majority of people who hold these beliefs, there has been an uptick in this belief among Republicans, and that is being driven by younger Republicans, Republicans under 45, which is very interesting. Younger generations are more likely to believe that climate change is a problem. Also, people have had to deal with natural disasters, which I think is really fascinating. Nine out of 10 people, whenever they live through a natural disaster in this country, they attribute some of that to climate change, which is really interesting. So, I mean, it is a complicated thing. I will say even people who believe that climate change is a problem, how that ranks in terms of their priorities changes over time. And this has not been consistently a problem. And I don't know how much of that is, you know, beyond the fact that the Biden administration, especially when the Inflation Reduction act was passed, there was a lot of discourse about the president not going out and talking about this a lot. There was a tremendous amount of money focused on climate change in that bill.

[B]

A lot, A lot.

[A]

And you hardly heard him talk about it. And so that issue was just not in front of voters. So it's kind of got out of people's minds. It's not surprising that belief in this being a problem is taking a little bit of a dip right now. But we'll see. Life is long. Natural disasters happen in this country all the time. And that apparently is also a thing that changes the saliency of this issue. So for right now, though, it does look like there is a little bit of a dip in belief that this is a problem that we should change.

[B]

All right, well, let's leave it there for today. Jeff, thank you so much for joining us.

[C]

Yeah, thank you for having me.

[B]

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[A]

I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics.

[B]

And thank you. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.