How dangerous is Donald Trump’s “endangerment” decision?
The Economist
February 13, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
President Donald Trump’s decision to terminate the “endangerment finding” marks a significant rollback in U.S. climate regulation, with far-reaching implications for both environmental policy and business operations. This legal framework, established under the Obama administration, identified greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a threat to public health and welfare, forming the basis for numerous climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan. By ending this finding, Trump has removed a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to address climate change, which environmental groups argue could leave future generations at greater risk from extreme weather events and other climate-related hazards.
The move, described by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” aligns with Trump’s broader agenda of rolling back environmental regulations to promote industrial interests and reduce business costs. While the administration claims the decision is based on outdated science, critics argue it disregards overwhelming evidence linking GHGs to global warming. Environmental advocacy groups like the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) warn that this reversal could undermine decades of progress in curbing emissions and set a dangerous precedent for future climate action.
From a business perspective, this decision could have significant implications. The loss of legal authority to regulate GHGs may slow the transition to cleaner energy sources and reduce incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy or adopt sustainable practices. Additionally, it could strain international relations, as other countries may view U.S. leadership on climate issues as weakened. industries reliant on fossil fuels, however, are likely to benefit from reduced regulatory burdens, potentially leading to increased production and profits in the short term.
Ultimately, Trump’s decision represents a major shift in U.S. climate policy that could have lasting consequences for both the environment and the economy. While it may provide short-term gains for certain sectors, it raises concerns about long-term risks to public health, global stability, and business operations in an increasingly carbon-constrained world.
Verticals
businesseconomics
Originally published on The Economist on 2/13/2026