Trump’s EPA Challenges Climate Orthodoxy and Gets Sued for Heresy

## When Deregulation Becomes a Federal Crime (Apparently)

Here’s what passes for controversy in 2025: The EPA decides to revisit an Obama-era regulation, and suddenly we’re treated to a legal circus featuring nearly 20 activist groups clutching their pearls in unison. The crime? Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration had the audacity to question whether sweeping climate regulations built on a 15-year-old “endangerment finding” still serve the American people.

The lawsuit dropped Wednesday like a coordinated media event. Because that’s essentially what it was.

Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, and a parade of usual suspects lined up to sue the EPA for doing exactly what elections are supposed to enable: changing course. Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, called it a “complete dereliction” of the EPA’s mission. She threw around words like “shameful” and “dangerous” with the kind of fervor you’d expect when discussing actual environmental disasters, not regulatory rollbacks.

But let’s talk about what’s actually happening here.

## The Endangerment Finding Nobody Wants to Discuss

The Obama administration’s endangerment finding wasn’t just some minor technical document. It was the legal foundation for an entire regulatory empire. It declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Sounds reasonable on its face, right? Except this single finding became the justification for regulations that reached into virtually every corner of American economic life.

Vehicle emissions standards. Power plant rules. Manufacturing requirements. The finding didn’t just guide policy. It dictated it.

Now Trump’s EPA wants to revisit whether that framework still makes sense. Whether the science has evolved. Whether the costs and benefits were accurately calculated in the first place. These aren’t radical questions. They’re the kind of questions any functioning government should ask periodically about major regulations.

Yet here we are, with activist groups treating this review like it’s environmental terrorism.

## The Science That Cannot Be Questioned

Goldman claimed the EPA’s action is “rooted in falsehoods not facts” and contradicts “the best available science.” It’s a familiar rhetorical move. Wrap your position in the mantle of Science (capital S intended) and suddenly any disagreement becomes heresy.

But science isn’t settled by lawsuit or activist press release. It’s a process of constant questioning and refinement. The idea that a 2009 finding should remain untouchable forever isn’t scientific. It’s religious.

And honestly, when was the last time these groups applied the same scrutiny to their own claims that they demand from skeptics? The climate models that predicted coastal cities underwater by now? The renewable energy projections that ignored real-world costs and reliability issues? There’s plenty of “best available science” that didn’t pan out as advertised.

## What This Is Really About

Strip away the apocalyptic language and legal posturing, and you’ll find the real issue: control. These regulations give federal agencies enormous power over American industry, energy production, and daily life. Rolling them back doesn’t just change policy. It shifts power away from bureaucrats and activists back toward elected officials and citizens.

That’s what terrifies these groups. Not pollution. Not climate change. Loss of control.

The lawsuit names nearly 20 organizations, from the American Lung Association to the Center for Biological Diversity. It’s an impressive coalition if you’re into that sort of thing. But notice what’s missing: any acknowledgment that reasonable people might disagree about the proper balance between environmental regulation and economic freedom.

No mention of the families struggling with energy costs inflated by green mandates. No consideration for the manufacturing jobs shipped overseas to countries with lower environmental standards. No recognition that maybe, just maybe, Americans deserve a government that questions whether decades-old regulatory frameworks still serve them well.

## The Path Forward

Look, nobody’s arguing for polluted rivers or smog-choked cities. But there’s a massive difference between sensible environmental stewardship and regulatory overreach justified by doomsday predictions. The EPA’s willingness to revisit the endangerment finding represents something we desperately need more of in government: humility and accountability.

Will the lawsuit succeed? That depends on judges willing to recognize that regulatory agencies can’t operate as permanent fiefdoms immune to democratic accountability. The Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to regulate pollution. It doesn’t require the agency to embrace every climate activist’s wish list as settled science.

Trump’s EPA is doing what it should: asking hard questions about whether existing regulations actually protect Americans or just protect a preferred policy narrative. That 20 groups immediately sued tells you everything about who benefits from the status quo and who’s threatened by change.

The American people elected leadership promising to challenge regulatory excess. Now we’ll see whether courts allow that election to mean anything or whether activist lawsuits can indefinitely preserve Obama-era policies regardless of what voters want.

That’s the real endangerment here. Not to the environment, but to self-governance itself.

American Conservatives