American Taliban Lee Zeldins' Anti-Science Campaign

EPA doubles down on decision to overturn scientific findings amid outcry: 'Borders on criminal negligence'
Kim LaCapria
Mon, August 11, 2025 


EPA doubles down on decision to overturn scientific findings amid outcry: 'Borders on criminal negligence' [Doesn't Lee Zeldin look like Texas neanderthal Ken Paxton without the sleepy eye?]

Recently appointed Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday to justify a recent EPA attempt to repeal a scientific finding — one which enables the agency to regulate harmful emissions under the Clean Air Act.

What's happening?

On July 29, the EPA issued a press release about a proposal announced during Zeldin's visit to a car dealership in Indianapolis.

It disclosed plans to "revoke" the 2009 Endangerment Finding, citing a non-existent "electric vehicle (EV) mandate" as policy enabled by it.

The "Endangerment Finding" refers to a December 2009 acknowledgment by the EPA's then-Administrator, "a prerequisite" enabling the Agency to regulate harmful emissions.

It recognized that "current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases … threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and that vehicle emissions "contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health."

The EPA's adoption of the Endangerment Finding followed a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA, identifying greenhouse gases as a form of pollution subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

In the EPA's press release proposing the repeal of the finding, the Agency made no attempt to couch the decision in terms of science.

Rather, it asserted that "many have stated that the American people and auto manufacturing have suffered from significant uncertainties and massive costs" since the EPA recognized greenhouse gas pollution — often from power plants and car exhaust — as a public health threat.

While the health threat of this pollution also includes the common sense that people should avoid breathing in this pollution directly and thus it is not a positive toward the quality of the air at large, the Endangerment Finding itself focuses more on the gases' contributions toward the planet's increasing average temperatures.

During his CNN appearance on Aug. 3, Zeldin claimed the Endangerment Finding "relied on the most pessimistic views of the science," but failed to explain further.

"We're going through a public comment period. We want to make the right decision afterward," Zeldin said.

At one point, a CNN host directly asked Zeldin if he rejected a global scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to overheat.

"That might be your way to try to twist my words," Zeldin deflected. He did not answer the question.
Why are attempts to 'revoke' the Endangerment Finding concerning?

Although the Endangerment Finding is relatively young, it gave the federal government a legal basis to enforce emissions pollution standards and regulate threats to public health.

In their coverage of Zeldin's proposal, The New York Times called the move the administration's "most consequential step yet to derail federal climate efforts."

CBS News reported that the move followed the hottest year on record from cumulative average temperatures, 2024, and an ever-increasing number of deadly and violent extreme weather events.

The outlet quoted a statement by Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology.

"For the EPA to repeal the 2009 finding borders on criminal negligence," Howarth said. "The science was clear in 2009 and has become much stronger and clearer since: climate disruption is a large and growing problem; it is caused primarily from our use of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions of carbon dioxide and methane; and it is a deadly problem."
What's being done about it?

Zeldin alluded to a "public comment period" for Americans to object to the repeal of the Endangerment Finding.

Christy Goldfuss of the Natural Resources Defense Council signaled that environmental advocacy groups intend to fight the proposal.

"If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court," Goldfuss told CBS.