Trump Is Aiming Again at a Familiar First-Term Target. The Consequences Could Be Deadly.

Environmental and public health groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its latest attempt to roll back climate protections. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to revoke most of a Biden-era rule aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants and proposed eliminating all remaining emission requirements for such facilities. The move, finalized in the Federal Register on Thursday, marks another effort by the Trump administration to weaken climate regulations. The American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations submitted a petition Thursday requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the changes. They argue the EPA's actions are unlawful and pose serious risks to public health and the environment by exacerbating climate change and increasing healthcare costs. Lawrence Hafetz, legal director of the Pennsylvania-based Clean Air Council, stated that the rollback would lead to increased illness, extreme weather, and higher energy costs, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. The EPA’s decision comes amid a summer marked by deadly heatwaves, massive wildfires, and catastrophic flooding in Nepal, where glacial collapse triggered at least 1,300 deaths. Scientists have linked these disasters to human-induced climate change. A recent United Nations report warns that current emissions are accelerating global warming and intensifying environmental threats. The U.S. remains the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, primarily due to fossil fuel combustion. The EPA declined to comment on pending litigation and did not address criticisms of its rule. This follows a series of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle climate protections, including the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared climate pollution a threat to public health. Recent court rulings have supported environmental groups opposing these measures. Pat Parenteau, a climate law expert at Vermont Law & Graduate School, noted that the courts serve as the last line of defense against the Trump administration’s policies. He expressed optimism that lawsuits will succeed, citing the administration’s weak legal arguments. However, the latest case focuses on whether the feasibility of meeting the 2024 power plant rule’s requirements, particularly related to carbon capture and sequestration, has been adequately demonstrated. Parenteau emphasized that this will require careful judicial evaluation of technological maturity and application. Frank Sturges, a senior staff attorney at the Clean Air Task Force representing some of the groups in the lawsuit, criticized the 2024 rule as being based on sound scientific and legal grounds. He argued that the administration’s attempt to repeal it lacks a lawful foundation and reflects a broader pattern of undermining established standards. Sturges described the action as part of a larger trend of removing well-supported regulations. Separately, the Trump administration proposed a regulation that would end the collection of race and ethnicity data in the decennial census, a practice dating back to the 1790 census. This change, which could impact public health planning and resource allocation, has drawn criticism for lacking scientific justification and failing to involve relevant federal agencies. The Biden administration had previously updated the standards in 2024 with rigorous analysis and stakeholder input, whereas the current proposal offers minimal rationale and disregards longstanding practices.