Barack Obama hits back as Donald Trump cuts landmark climate change regulation

Barack Obama has sharply criticized a move by the Trump administration to dismantle a core climate safeguard from the former president’s tenure, warning the rollback risks public health and safety while undermining the nation’s ability to confront global warming.

What was rolled back

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding—a scientific determination under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. That finding has served as the legal foundation for federal limits on carbon pollution from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources.

Former President Donald Trump announced plans to scrap the finding, arguing it was a costly policy that raised prices and burdened U.S. manufacturers, particularly automakers. The EPA said the reversal could deliver large consumer savings, estimating more than $1 trillion over time. Supporters of the move frame it as regulatory relief and a reset of climate policy.

Why critics are alarmed

Public health and environmental advocates warn the step would strip away the very basis for regulating climate pollution, potentially weakening standards for vehicle emissions and other sectors. They argue the change ignores mounting evidence of climate-related harm and exposes communities to greater risk from extreme heat, flooding, wildfire smoke, and other hazards.

Leaders at major environmental organizations have described the repeal as tantamount to denying the reality and consequences of the climate crisis. They point to a surge in costly disasters—from destructive floods in the Southeast to wind-driven wildfires in the West and record-breaking heat waves—that align with scientific projections in a warming world.

The science behind the stakes

Decades of research by U.S. and international scientists conclude that heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving planetary warming, intensifying downpours, amplifying heat extremes, and increasing the likelihood of large, fast-moving wildfires. Federal research has projected that, if emissions continue to rise, the most intense rainfall events could become substantially more frequent and more severe across much of the country, raising flood risk for homes, roads, and farms.

In the American West, assessments have found that human-caused climate change has increased the likelihood of “fire weather”—hot, dry, and windy conditions that prime landscapes to burn. Prolonged drought and earlier snowmelt dry out vegetation, allowing sparks to spread rapidly and turning routine ignitions into dangerous conflagrations.

Economic and industry implications

Supporters of the rollback say looser rules will lower costs for consumers and reduce compliance burdens. Opponents counter that rolling back the legal basis for carbon limits introduces uncertainty for businesses and investors who are already planning around long-term climate risk and global market trends. Automakers, for example, have spent heavily to develop cleaner technologies and meet growing demand for efficient, low-emission vehicles worldwide.

Public health experts also note that cutting climate protections can carry hidden costs: more days with unhealthy air, higher heat-related hospitalizations, and greater disaster recovery bills borne by taxpayers and insurers. Weighing those costs against short-term savings is at the core of the debate now unfolding.

Politics and the path ahead

The repeal fits within a broader push to expand domestic oil and gas production and scale back climate regulations. During and after his time in office, Trump has repeatedly criticized proposals to accelerate a transition to clean energy and has cast renewable power as costly or unreliable, while praising fossil fuels as essential to economic growth.

By targeting the Endangerment Finding, the administration is going after the keystone of federal climate authority. Legal experts expect a wave of lawsuits from states, public health groups, and environmental organizations, which are likely to argue that overturning a scientific determination without robust evidence is arbitrary and violates the Clean Air Act’s requirements. Courts have previously upheld the EPA’s obligation to regulate greenhouse gases when they are found to endanger public welfare.

What it means for climate risk

Delays in cutting greenhouse gas emissions lock in additional warming, raising the floor for future extremes. Every fraction of a degree matters: it can mean more intense downpours that overwhelm storm drains, longer and hotter heat waves that threaten outdoor workers and the elderly, and fire seasons that expand across months instead of weeks. Communities already grappling with these impacts—often low-income neighborhoods and rural areas with limited resources—could face growing costs and tougher recoveries.

The bottom line

Scrapping the Endangerment Finding would upend the framework the U.S. has used for more than a decade to rein in climate pollution. Backers call it overdue deregulation; critics call it a dangerous step backward from science and public health. The outcome will likely be decided in court—and by how quickly federal, state, and private actors move to reduce emissions despite the policy whiplash.