“Climate Change Denialism is Now Official US Policy”
On Thursday, February 12, 2026, the Trump administration made one of the most consequential moves on climate policy in U.S. history: EPA finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse-gas “Endangerment Finding” as it applies to motor vehicles and engines—and eliminated federal greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and engines (model years 2012–2027 and beyond).
The White House framed it as a consumer-affordability and anti-red-tape action—Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it the “largest deregulatory action,” with EPA claiming $1.3 trillion in savings. Climate change activists decried it as a brazen and willfully foolish attempt to gut the legal foundation of federal climate regulation, and an unlawful, science-denying giveaway to polluters that will worsen pollution and public-health harms.
But even before the ink dries, the likely practical consequence—apart from untold damage to the atmosphere— is already coming into focus: a long legal war and a messy regulatory landscape where states—especially California and allied states—try to fill the vacuum while automakers and suppliers brace for uncertainty.
What EPA actually did
EPA’s final rule does two headline things:
Rescinds the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” for greenhouse gases as a prerequisite for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and engines under Clean Air Act §202(a). EPA’s position is blunt: without that finding, EPA lacks statutory authority under §202(a) to set GHG standards for new vehicles.
Eliminates federal GHG standards for vehicles/engines for model years 2012–2027 and beyond, per EPA’s announcement. EPA also highlighted the removal of related compliance architecture, including items like off-cycle credits and the start-stop credit regime it singled out in public messaging.
This isn’t a narrow adjustment of target numbers. It’s an attack on the legal foundation that made federal vehicle climate regulation possible in the first place—as radical as the RFK public-health rewrite where the point isn’t reform, it’s demolition—scrapping the scientific predicate so the entire regulatory structure can’t stand.
Why this move matters even beyond tailpipes
The Endangerment Finding has functioned for more than a decade as the keystone supporting federal greenhouse-gas regulation across multiple sectors. That’s why the administration’s opponents are treating this not as “an emissions rollback,” but as a direct attempt to defang the Clean Air Act’s climate reach—and why litigation is essentially guaranteed.
EPA itself previewed the legal posture: the agency explicitly tied its reasoning to recent Supreme Court administrative-law decisions, signaling it expects the fight to be decided as much by doctrine as by science.
The administration’s argument: costs, choice, and “unachievable” rules
In making the announcement, Trump framed it as follows:
This rollback will reduce compliance costs (EPA’s claim: $1.3 trillion).
It will reduce the cost of vehicles for consumers (Trump cited a several-thousand-dollar figure in public remarks, as reported).
Prior rules were “unachievable” given market demand for EVs, as some industry-adjacent coverage and statements have echoed.
That’s the sales pitch: less federal constraint, more consumer choice, lower prices.
The predictable consequence: regulatory fragmentation
Here’s the part that matters for industry planning and for the politics of what comes next: vacuum creates leverage.
Legal experts and major outlets are converging on the same forecast: if federal standards are removed (or tied up in court), the U.S. moves toward a patchwork where manufacturers face:
State-by-state regulatory fights
Multi-year litigation
Conflicting timelines and compliance expectations, especially for companies selling nationwide and globally
Reuters put it plainly: without a consistent federal policy, companies may have to navigate differing state and regional emissions rules, and lawsuits are likely.
Reactions: fury on the left, cheers on the right, and a lot of nervousness
California and climate-state coalitions: lawsuit posture, immediately
California is already positioned as the spear tip—CalMatters reported the state is preparing to sue and exploring how to press its own standards in the vacuum.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken the fight international, calling the rollback a “Code Red” for climate leadership and emphasizing that California intends to keep driving policy and investment regardless of Washington.
A coalition response from the U.S. Climate Alliance (co-chaired by Newsom and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers) also slammed EPA’s move.
Environmental and public-health advocates: “this is the legal foundation”
Environmental groups and climate policy organizations framed the decision as a direct assault on the basis for climate regulation—less a regulatory tweak than a structural dismantling.
Automakers and business: mixed public posture, shared private problem—uncertainty
Industry reaction is split in a way that tells you where the real pressure points are:
Some corners of the car-and-aftermarket world openly celebrated the rollback as a win against what they call federal and state “EV mandates.”
But Reuters noted that some major automakers have historically preferred keeping the Endangerment Finding—not because they love regulation, but because a single federal baseline offers predictability and reduces the risk of a fifty-state compliance maze.
International-facing companies are also signaling continuity: Volkswagen, for example, said its transformation commitments remain unchanged—because global markets, investors, and foreign regulations don’t pause when Washington changes course.
This is the under-discussed point: even in a deregulatory moment, multinational manufacturers still live inside European, Asian, and investor-driven expectations. Federal rollback does not repeal global competition.
What happens next
Three tracks begin immediately:
Court fights (states + environmental groups vs. EPA), likely seeking to stay the rule and attack the agency’s legal logic.
State regulatory acceleration, with California and aligned states attempting to preserve aggressive emissions trajectories by any available pathway.
Corporate planning under uncertainty, where automakers hedge: continue EV/efficiency investments for global competitiveness, while lobbying hard for a stable U.S. framework—one way or another.
The administration can call this “deregulation.” The near-term reality looks more like regulatory relocation: from Washington rulemaking to state capitols and federal courtrooms.
Retired, living in the Scottish Borders after living most of my life in cities in England. I can now indulge my interest in all aspects of living close to nature in a wild landscape. I live on what was once the Iapetus Ocean which took millions of years to travel from the Southern Hemisphere to here in the Northern Hemisphere. That set me thinking and questioning and seeking answers.
In 1998 I co-wrote Millennium Countdown (US)/ A Business Guide to the Year 2000 (UK) see https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780749427917
borderslynn 