EPA announces rescission of 2009 ruling allowing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and deletion of vehicle emission standards; environmental groups prepare for legal battle that could reach Supreme Court
The Donald Trump administration announced on February 12, 2026, that it would rescind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Emergency Finding”—the scientific-legal determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and well-being and that their emissions could (and should) be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The announcement, made alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is being billed by the White House as “the largest deregulation move in American history.”
According to the EPA's announcement, the cancellation does not remain at the principle level: it is accompanied by the cancellation of greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and engines for model years 2012–2027 and beyond, and the cancellation of various regulatory "credit" mechanisms (including those related to the Start-Stop mechanism). (U.S. EPA)
What was actually canceled – and what was the official reason?
The official announcement states that as part of a “final rule,” the EPA is repealing the 2009 risk finding and greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, claiming cumulative savings of more than $1.3 trillion for consumers and companies due to the removal of measurement, reporting, certification, and compliance obligations.
The main argument presented by the administration is legal: the EPA claims that Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Is not grants authority to set emissions standards “to address global climate change,” and therefore there is no legal basis for the risk finding and the regulation built upon it. In this context, the EPA refers to Supreme Court rulings (including West Virginia v. EPA) and other recent case law that affects the interpretation of federal agency powers.
On the other hand, news reports emphasize that this is a move aimed at damaging the core of the federal ability to regulate emissions, especially in the transportation sector — a major source of emissions in the US.
Why is this a “tectonic” move from a legal perspective?
The historical basis for the risk finding begins with the US Supreme Court ruling of April 2, 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA), which determined that greenhouse gases fall within the definition of an “air pollutant” in the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA has the authority (and under certain conditions also the obligation) to regulate them. (Justia Law)
The 2009 risk finding has since been a cornerstone: it served as a prerequisite for setting various standards, most notably vehicle emissions standards. Over the years, legal attempts have been made to challenge it, but federal courts have tended to uphold the basic logic, and in recent years there have also been reports of various petitions being dismissed.
Therefore, the big question now is not just “what is the administration repealing,” but whether the courts will uphold the new legal logic—and if so, to what extent will it constrain future administrations from reimposing similar regulation. Reuters also notes that a legal battle is expected that could once again reach the Supreme Court.
Reactions and Implications: Between “Relief for Consumers” and “Clash with Science and Reality”
The administration claims that the move will restore “freedom of choice” to consumers and reduce costs, and that there is no “substantial” benefit to global climate indicators even if the US completely eliminates vehicle emissions — a claim that is highly controversial.
On the other hand, environmental and health organizations have announced that they will go to court. A Washington Post report cites assessments according to which the move is seen as a direct attack on the “legal skeleton” of federal climate policy, and as one that could lead to the cancellation or weakening of broader emissions restrictions.
In public discourse, too, such a move comes against the backdrop of years of rising costs of extreme weather damage; reports have cited estimates of huge damage in the US in 2025.
The move was taken precisely at a time when the US was experiencing extreme weather events, from flooding in the East to heat waves in the West. These extremes occurred because of the relief given to polluting industries. Greenhouse gases accumulate and do not take into account one politics or another.
Global implications
The consequences of the move may be indirect and significant in three ways:
- Signal to markets and countries: A sharp change in the American line could affect a decrease in appetite for investments in emissions reduction technologies, and the way other countries “price” climate risk.
- Industrial competition and trade: If the US relaxes standards, while Europe tightens (for example, through border carbon mechanisms), there may be regulatory gaps that will affect global manufacturers — including supply chains in which Israeli companies operate.
- Scientific-public discourse: The “war of interpretations” surrounding climate science in the US tends to resonate in other arenas as well; in Israel, where the climate crisis is already manifesting itself in extreme heat events and changes in precipitation, public debate may be influenced by international headlines even if local policy is determined differently.
Key sources for reading (all deal with the same announcement from 12-2-2026):
More of the topic in Hayadan:
