The United States is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. Regulating those emissions is critical to slow climate change and protect Americans from deadly air pollution.

Yet on Feb. 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made regulating greenhouse gas emissions much harder. The agency finalized a rule overturning its own “endangerment finding” — established after years of scientific analysis — that concluded that greenhouse gas pollution endangers human health and requires regulation. At the same time, the EPA repealed emissions standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

This matters because under the Clean Air Act, one of the U.S.’ foundational environmental laws, the EPA is legally required to regulate pollutants once it determines they endanger public health and the environment. By repealing this finding, the EPA removes the scientific and legal basis that requires federal regulation of greenhouse gases, weakening protections for people, the environment and the economy.

Profile photo.David Widawsky, Director, WRI's U.S. Program

WRI U.S. Director and climate expert David Widawsky breaks down what is at stake for U.S. households, why this deregulation could increase legal risks for businesses and what comes next.

What is the endangerment finding the EPA repealed?

Let’s break down what the endangerment finding is and why it matters. In 2009, after years of extensive scientific review, EPA officially determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. This “endangerment finding,” as it’s known, was based on overwhelming evidence from EPA’s own experts, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and the scientific community that shows that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from extracting and burning fossil fuels drive global climate change and harm people.

The finding was legally critical. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to regulate substances that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Once the EPA made that determination for greenhouse gases, the agency was legally obligated to act. The finding became the legal foundation for federal climate policy, including regulating vehicle, industrial and power plant emissions and treating climate change as a public health issue under the EPA’s authority.

What does the repeal of the endangerment finding mean? 

After 16 years, spanning multiple U.S. administrations and Congresses, the EPA has now issued a rule saying that the scientific evidence and legal interpretation behind the endangerment finding were wrong and must be rescinded. This doesn’t eliminate all regulation of air pollution. The EPA still regulates pollutants such nitrous oxide and ozone. But the repeal specifically targets the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases from extracting and burning fossil fuels.

The impact is sweeping. The endangerment finding underpinned regulations across multiple sectors, including emissions limits for consumer vehicles, commercial vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, standards for coal-fired and natural gas power plants, and federal sustainability requirements that shape government procurement and broader market behavior.

It also served as a justification for grant programs aimed at reducing emissions, many of which were already eliminated in last year’s congressional reconciliation bill. In practical terms, without the endangerment finding, regulating greenhouse gas emissions is no longer a legal requirement. The science hasn’t changed, but the obligation to act on it has been removed. 

What are the implications for people, households and livelihoods?  

Without federal action to curb emissions, the impacts of climate change will only intensify, and American families will bear the financial and health burden. The impacts are both immediate and long-term. Many are already happening.

For example, climate change-related impacts are already increasing food costs. Beef prices are rising to record highs as droughts in western states, intensified by rising temperatures, have drastically reduced grazing land and cattle herds. Thousands of acres of vegetables in Florida and the Southeast have likely been destroyed by extreme cold snaps. Climate change is affecting food production by altering growing conditions and increasing the frequency of extreme weather, such as drought, heat or extreme cold. This can have negative economic effects on both farmers and consumers.

Families may face higher energy bills, increased emergency room visits in some regions and rising health care costs associated with heat waves and poorer air quality. Insurance premiums will likely rise as climate disasters become more frequent and severe. In some áreas, coverage is becoming harder to obtain or afford, which can affect housing costs.

At the community level, increasing floods, fires and droughts will strain water and energy systems. Some places may even become unlivable from being too expensive, too unstable or simply too dangerous to stay. The costs compound from infrastructure repairs, emergency response and displacement. 

What are the implications for businesses? 

Businesses may face higher costs due to rising electricity prices and rising insurance costs to cover climate disaster recovery. 

In addition, the repeal could potentially create unexpected legal risks for some businesses. The endangerment finding has provided certain legal protections for companies, as the existence of federal climate regulation has been a factor when dismissing some lawsuits. Its removal may change this legal landscape for businesses, possibly exposing power plant operators and other companies to litigation. 

Why are vehicle emissions being repealed alongside the endangerment finding? 

The endangerment finding originated from a specific section of the Clean Air Act that deals with vehicle emissions. This section required the EPA to determine whether pollution from vehicles endangers health and welfare. 

Once the EPA made that determination for greenhouse gases from vehicles in 2009, the agency used the same finding as the legal foundation for regulating emissions from other sources like power plants, buildings and other forms of transport. So, the vehicles were ground zero but the implications spread far beyond cars and trucks.

By repealing vehicle emissions standards first, the EPA is targeting the most direct application of the endangerment finding. But it sets up a domino effect. If the finding doesn’t apply to vehicles, where it originated, it undermines the legal basis for greenhouse gas regulations across all sectors. That’s why the two repeals are linked. 

Can the repeal be challenged?

A number of entities already filed lawsuits in 2025 challenging the EPA’s initial steps to repeal the endangerment finding. Additional legal actions are likely to follow when the final rule is published. Something this important, in place for 16 years, won’t go without a fight.  

What does this mean for US leadership in the world? 

By withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in early 2026, the U.S. became the only nation refusing to participate in climate change discussions and negotiations. Other countries are not following the U.S. in abandoning climate targets, and some have reaffirmed or even raised their climate goals despite U.S. pressure.

However, the rest of the world takes notice when the U.S. turns its back on rock-solid science and tries to convince people to not believe their own eyes — and wallets. The U.S. risks losing trust among friends and allies that its policy decisions are grounded in facts and science and that it’s a reliable partner. Other nations, like China, will position themselves as reliable partners and economic leaders just as the U.S. pulls back.

Moving away from science doesn’t just weaken U.S. environmental and public health policies. It threatens U.S. leadership on every issue where credibility matters, from trade and finance to industry competitiveness to national security.