According to reports, the EPA urged Trump to abolish the discovery of hazards, the Washington Post claimed – What about Watt?

The Washington Post published a report today saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended that the Trump administration repeal the 2009 “hazardous discovery” that categorizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. For a decade, this discovery has supported federal emission regulations. The post shows that if action is taken, it will mark a major shift in U.S. climate policy. This story relies on unnamed sources, and its claims are unverified, but worth noting given the potential impact.

The post article pointed out that Trump administration officials are evaluating whether to reverse hazard risk discovery, which was the first decision made by the Obama administration, which later used the Biden administration to limit emissions restrictions on vehicles and power plants. The report cites “three people who introduced the matter”, referring to former EPA chief of staff and 2025 project contributor Mandy Gunasekara, while former Justice Department official Jonathan Brightbill was involved in the work consultant. On his first day of office, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA administrator Lee Zeldin to assess the “legality and ongoing applicability” of the finding within 30 days and submit it to Russell Vorge at the Office of Management and Budget Have suggestions. The EPA has not released the recommendations yet, and spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou declined to comment, not just confirming compliance with the order.

Because The Washington Post based its account on three anonymous persons, rather than designated officials or recorded evidence. The lack of other documentation or recording statements mentioned in the story makes the report's foundation uncertain, though not necessarily inaccurate.

The 2009 hazard ruling was insisted by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and has been the goal of critics of federal climate policy. During Trump's first term, skeptics applied to the EPA to repeal the EPA, but the agency's obstructionist bureaucrats fell into opposition to Trump and finally successfully rejected Trump's petition in 2021 Book, the reason is legal restrictions. This time around the Trump administration, the past is clearly understood.

Early actions by the current government, including executive orders, demonstrate renewed interest in reexamining the issue. Tom Pyle of the American Energy Union and Myron Ebell of the American Land Commission cited the idea that it could ease the regulatory burden and promote the rules challenge in the Biden era.

Reversing this discovery will face obstacles. Sean Donahue, an environmental attorney quoted in the post, believes that scientific records that support hazards (made for decades) could face the challenges of repealing the legal. Previous court rulings strengthened the EPA’s mandate, and any rollback could spark a lawsuit from environmental groups, but unlike Trump’s first term, Trump will have a Justice Department that supports him in the lawsuit.

If successful, repealing hazard discovery will undermine the legal basis of many existing climate regulations, potentially affecting emission standards in vehicles, power plants and other sectors. Critics of this discovery, including many contributors to the site, have long questioned its scientific basis, suggesting a huge uncertainty in climate models and historical data.

It was not found that the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be greatly reduced, thus greatly diverting the policy landscape.

The report of the post, if confirmed, could reshape the federal climate effort. However, its reliance on anonymous sources is worthy of caution. The rationality of the story is supported by previous government actions and the participation of known policy advisers, but there is a lack of concrete evidence (such as leaked documents or official official) and is now preserved in the field of speculation. Observers should pay attention to further confirmation. Until then, this is still an interesting but unconfirmed claim.

Related