Alex Padilla U.S. Senator for California

Senators: “Your push to undermine the Endangerment Finding seems based not on sound science or legal reasoning, but rather on an agenda that prioritizes industry profits over public health, environmental protection, and climate safety.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with all other Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), demanded answers about Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin’s secretive efforts to roll back the longstanding EPA endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and welfare. The endangerment finding underpins greenhouse gas regulations, and repealing it would ignore scientific consensus while in effect gutting emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, airplanes, and more — which would increase harmful, toxic pollution.  

During then-nominee Zeldin’s confirmation, he testified that he “strongly believe[s] we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our environment for generations to come,” and that he was “someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists.” But this week, it was revealed that he — behind the scenes and away from public scrutiny — has been urging the Trump Administration to rescind the evidence-based endangerment finding. The fact that greenhouse gases harm public health was scientific fact when the endangerment finding was issued in 2009, and 16 years later, the evidence has only gotten stronger and the looming economic harms more dangerous. Since Administrator Zeldin’s confirmation, he has also announced plans to carry out a politically motivated purge of scientists from EPA and has overseen an illegal funding freeze that is threatening to kill jobs and drive up energy costs nationwide.

“This key finding underpins EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, which EPA also found in 2009 to ‘contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare,’ as well as other pollution-emitting sources. Without the finding, EPA cannot fulfill its core mission and legal obligation of ensuring clean air for the American people,” wrote the Senators.

“As you surely know, any attempt to rescind the Endangerment Finding flies in the face of established science and EPA’s own findings. EPA has found that its greenhouse gas regulations generate billions of dollars in savings for Americans and huge reductions in premature deaths, emergency room visits, heart disease, cancer, stroke, asthma onset and symptoms, and missed workdays,” continued the Senators.

“Your recommendation to strike down the Endangerment Finding appears to be part of a broader effort to dismantle environmental protections at the behest of fossil fuel interests. Reporting and previous investigations of the Senate Committee on the Budget indicate that oil industry lobbyists pre-drafted executive orders that would weaken climate regulations in anticipation of a second Trump Administration. In short, the fossil fuel industry is now collecting the return on its investment in the 2024 election,” concluded the Senators. “… [Y]our push to undermine the Endangerment Finding seems based not on sound science or legal reasoning, but rather on an agenda that prioritizes industry profits over public health, environmental protection, and climate safety.”

Specifically, Zeldin recommended to the Office of Management and Budget that the EPA withdraw its 2009 finding under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases … in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” (the ‘Endangerment Finding’). 

Over the past 15 years, the scientific consensus supporting the endangerment finding has only strengthened, with successive National Climate Assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change demonstrating extensive environmental and economic harms caused by climate change, including increased risks from flooding and wildfires. EPA’s endangerment finding is the foundation of subsequent endangerment findings for greenhouse gases emitted from power plants, aircraft engines, and oil and gas sector sources of methane. 

Padilla and Schiff signed the letter, led by EPW Ranking Member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), along with Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Administrator Zeldin,

We write to express grave concern about your recommendation to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdraw its December 7, 2009, finding under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases . . . in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” (the “Endangerment Finding”).  This key finding underpins EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, which EPA also found in 2009 to “contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare,” as well as other pollution-emitting sources. Without the finding, EPA cannot fulfill its core mission and legal obligation of ensuring clean air for the American people.

On February 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 3418, directing you, in collaboration with other agency heads, to submit joint recommendations to the OMB Director on the legality and continuing applicability of the Endangerment Finding. On February 26, 2025, the Washington Post reported that you had “privately urged the White House to strike down” the finding. President Trump’s directive and your recommendation, which follow years of legal precedent affirming the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, raise serious concerns about the Administration’s commitment to respecting established science, following the law, and fulfilling EPA’s core mission of protecting clean air—all three of which you promised the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee you would do if confirmed as EPA Administrator.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, compelling the EPA to regulate them if they pose a threat to public health and welfare. Following a rigorous review of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and extensive public input, EPA then issued the Endangerment Finding in 2009, requiring it to regulate greenhouse gases. The 2012 D.C. Circuit ruling in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA reaffirmed that the Endangerment Finding is grounded in substantial scientific evidence. The Supreme Court declined to review that decision and, in 2014, reaffirmed the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG emissions in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.  The Supreme Court has continued to decline to hear challenges to the Endangerment Finding, including as recently as December 11, 2023.

Over the intervening decade and a half, the scientific consensus supporting the Endangerment Finding has only strengthened, with successive National Climate Assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlining in increasing detail the extensive harms caused by climate change.  Multiple other sources echo these warnings, and extend them to coming economic harms, which we see already presenting themselves in a property insurance—and increasingly unpredictable—crisis driven by increased flooding and wildfire risk. This overwhelming evidence underpinned EPA’s promulgation of subsequent endangerment findings for greenhouse gases emitted from power plants, oil and gas sector sources of methane, and aircraft engines.

As you surely know, any attempt to rescind the Endangerment Finding flies in the face of established science and EPA’s own findings. EPA has found that its greenhouse gas regulations generate billions of dollars in savings for Americans and huge reductions in premature deaths, emergency room visits, heart disease, cancer, stroke, asthma onset and symptoms, and missed workdays.  Any attempt to rescind the Endangerment Finding will face significant legal and procedural hurdles, and will create chaos and uncertainty for industries that are relying on existing regulations.

Your recommendation to strike down the Endangerment Finding appears to be part of a broader effort to dismantle environmental protections at the behest of fossil fuel interests. Reporting and previous investigations of the Senate Committee on the Budget indicate that oil industry lobbyists pre-drafted executive orders that would weaken climate regulations in anticipation of a second Trump Administration.  In short, the fossil fuel industry is now collecting the return on its investment in the 2024 election. Nevertheless, you promised at your confirmation hearing that you would “work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists.”  Despite that pledge, your push to undermine the Endangerment Finding seems based not on sound science or legal reasoning, but rather on an agenda that prioritizes industry profits over public health, environmental protection, and climate safety.

Accordingly, in order to assist in our understanding of your recommendation concerning the Endangerment Finding, please respond to the following questions and requests for production of documents no later than March 6, 2025:

1. Provide a copy of your correspondence with OMB and any other executive branch parties recommending that the Endangerment Finding be rescinded;

2. Identify the author(s) of any such correspondence;

3. Provide all scientific, legal, and economic analyses used to inform your recommendation to OMB regarding the Endangerment Finding;

4. Identify all individuals and organizations consulted as part of this review process, including meetings with industry representatives and external stakeholders;

5. Explain how the EPA intends to reconcile any proposed rescission of the Endangerment Finding with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and subsequent legal precedent, which remains valid law;

6. Provide any communications (including but not limited to emails, text messages, and memoranda)—dating from November 1, 2024 to present—between and among the EPA and White House officials, members of the Trump 2024 campaign, members of the Trump-Vance Transition Team, OMB staff, Elon Musk, Russell Vought, Mandy Gunasekara, or Jonathan Brightbill regarding the review and potential withdrawal of the Endangerment Finding; and

7. Detail any plans the EPA has to conduct a formal rulemaking process to revise or rescind the Endangerment Finding.

The American people deserve transparency regarding policies that impact public health, the environment, and the stability of our climate. We expect your prompt and thorough response.

###