The Secret Plan to End U.S. Climate Regulations

From The New York Times, I'm Michael. Barbaro. This is The Daily. >> [music]. [music]. >> 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.

[music] the inside story of how a small. group of activists turned that once. improbable goal into [music] reality. >> [music]. >> It's Thursday, February 12th. Lisa, welcome back to The Daily. Thank. you. Thanks for having me. 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. 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 versus. 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. Mhm. 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. environment. And therefore should be. regulated. >> 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's 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. 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. 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 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. So, who are these people, these. conservative lawyers you're talking. about? It really starts with two people, Mandy. Gunasekara and Jonathan Brightbill. 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 health care. sectors. Gunasekara has a very long. history fighting climate policies about. climate change climate policies. She. used to work for Senator Jim Inhofe, who. wrote a book called The Greatest Hoax, The Global Warming Conspiracy. In case.

we have forgotten because we keep. hearing that 2014 has been the warmest. year on record, I asked the chair, do. you know what this is? It's a snowball. And he one day threw a snowball on the. Senate floor in February to prove that. climate change was not a thing. And that's just from outside here. So, it's very very cold out, very. unseasonal. So, here Mr. President, catch this. Mhm. Gonna Suckara is the the aid who handed.

him that snowball, and that's one of the. things she is pretty well known for in. in Washington. Huh. 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. Mhm. 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. She's. actually making the argument that. policies to address climate change 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. Before the Supreme Court will be the. question of what limits exist in Clean. Air Act section 111 D1. 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. 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. 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. And it makes your head spin to. try and parse through the various. clauses and instructions that are. contained there. 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. Mhm. Withdrawing the endangerment. finding eliminates the situation. entirely.

And that's what Gunasekara and. Brightbill plotted to do. And how do. they actually go about doing that? So, in the summer of 2022, Gunasekara and Brightbill start seeking. funding for a big new project. They want to create a secret operation. to kill the endangerment finding. >> [music]. >> They pitched conservative organizations. They asked for about $2 million. for.

the ability to work on scientific. studies and research from 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 [music] 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. Gunasekara wrote the EPA chapter for. Project 2025. So, these two lawyers, Gunasekara and. Breibill, they are ensuring that this. cause of rolling back environmental. regulations, of going after the. endangerment finding, that [snorts] it. gets taken up by a major conservative.

think tank in Heritage with a ton of. influence in Republican politics. 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 endangerment finding. And. who is that? Russ Vought. and Jeff Clark. Much better known. Much better known figures. Russell. Vought, as we know, during the Biden. years starts the starts a a think tank.

of his own, the Center for Renewing. America, where he they were keeping the. MAGA movement alive. Mhm. Jeff Clark has been in the fight against. the endangerment finding. for decades. EPA, it seems to me, is too. big, it's bloated on stimulus money, and. it seems hell-bent on expansion. 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. 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. He. loses that, and that from from. everything we have been told is really a. motivating factor for years with Jeff. Clark, what he sees as righting a wrong. 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. That's right. And so, by late 2022, 2023,

Jeff Clark and Russ Vought are ensconced. in a rowhouse in Capitol Hill that. Vought 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, Guna Sekhara and Brightbill are. collecting what they have called an. arsenal of information to support the. repeal of the endangerment finding. >> [music]. >> Sure enough, President Trump wins the.

presidency. Three out of four of the people that. we're talking about here, Brightbill, Clark, and Vought, go back into the. administration, Mhm. 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. >> [music]. [music]. >> We'll be right back.

>> [music]. [music]. >> So, Lisa, once 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? 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.". >> Mhm. 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." Hm. So, start with the science. Why do they. dispute the science? And is it. compelling? 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. Interesting. 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. Hm. 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. The 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. Mhm. Greenhouse gas emissions don't work that.

way. Carbon dioxide, methane, you know, all. these gases, they disperse into the. atmosphere. They trap heat. They linger from decades. to centuries. and alter the climate. Hm. So this EPA. is 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. Interesting. So their argument is that. the endangerment finding misunderstand.

the Clean Air Act. and thinks that you can 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. Exactly. Do lawyers agree with that argument? 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 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. Mhm. 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.

is 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. Mhm. They're arguing that the source, the. endangerment finding. should be overturned. 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 explicitly gives the EPA. authority to regulate greenhouse gas. emissions, which after decades they have. never done. And this Congress is very unlikely to. ever give it that power. Definitely not. 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? So what we expect is on Thursday, the. administrator of the EPA, Andrew. Wheeler, 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. And. what do we expect will happen in the. courts and just how high up in the. courts is this likely to go? Well, that's the thing. We know what the. group that we've been talking about, the. the folks who laid out this road map, 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. versus EPA, could be overturned or significantly. weakened. 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. 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.". 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. 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. Mhm. [clears throat].

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? >> Right. And yeah, we 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 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're 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. 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? 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. Like what? 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 3 years. Mhm. 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. 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? 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 have relayed to me. If the. United States is 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.

And where do those dominoes eventually. fall? I mean they 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. 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. Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong. Democrat and Speaker of the House. And. I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican,

and I used to be Speaker. I'm sure you. remember the famous. ad where Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich. were sitting on a couch together in. front of the Capitol. We don't always. see eye to eye, do we, Newt? 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 in. 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. 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. >> [music]. >> 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. >> [music].

[music]. >> Well, Lisa, thank you very much. Thanks so much. >> [music]. >> We'll be right back. >> [music]. [music]. >> Here's what else you need to know today.

On Wednesday, the mystery [music]. surrounding the federal government's. decision to abruptly shut down the. airspace around El Paso, Texas, originally for 10 [music] days, appeared. to be solved. The Times reports that the closure was. announced after officials from US. Customs and Border Protection decided to. [music] try out a new anti-drone laser. technology in order to shoot at what. they believed was [music] 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 [music]. on commercial planes. That prompted the FAA to shut down the. airspace [music]. before quickly reversing their own. decision. And. >> [music]. >> How many of Epstein's co-conspirators. have you indicted? How many perpetrators. are you even investigating? First. [music]. you showed a I I find it.

>> How many have you indicted? >> me, I'm going to answer the question. >> I answer my question. >> No, I'm going to answer the question the. way I want to answer the question. During a combative hearing on Wednesday. Democratic members of Congress sharply. [music] criticized Attorney General Pam. Bondi for her department's handling of. documents related [music] to Jeffrey. Epstein. and her repeated efforts to prosecute. enemies of [music] the president. You've. turned the people's Department of. Justice into Trump's [music] instrument.

of revenge. Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza. and you deliver every time. He tells you. to go after James Comey, Letitia James, Lisa Tuck. Bondi forcefully defended her. actions frequently [music] interrupted. lawmakers and at times insulted them as. she did to Representative Jamie Raskin. of Maryland. >> [music]. >> when he instructed Bondi to stop. filibustering in response to questions. from Democrats. And I told you about.

that Attorney [music] General before you. started. >> tell me. >> Now I did tell you because we saw what. you did in the Senate. Lady will be in order. >> [music]. >> Today's episode was produced by Eric. [music] Krupke, Michael Simon Johnson. and Anna Foley. It was edited by Maria Byrne and Devon. [music] Taylor, contains music by Alicia. Eubanks, Marion Lozano and Dan Powell. and was engineered by Chris Wood.

>> [music]. >> That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael [music] Barbaro. See you.