Trump Could Upend Every Facet Of The Obama-Biden Climate Agenda In One Fell Swoop

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Every week in this second Donald Trump presidency is such a whirlwind of major events that it is always a challenge to pick a topic for the next contribution here at the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But, despite this having been one of the most frenzied weeks of all since Jan. 20, picking the topic for this column was easy, because no energy-related action by this administration would have a bigger impact on American society than a successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gas regulation.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin “has privately urged the White House to strike down a scientific finding underpinning much of the federal government’s push to combat climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.” Zeldin’s recommendation was a response to Trump’s Day 1 executive order tasking Zeldin to conduct a review of “the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).’”

Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The Obama EPA’s finding was enabled by the 2007 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case allowing the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants in the context of the Clean Air Act. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who long served as the swing vote on the Court, joined with four liberal justices to give EPA this authority.

Given that the main so-called “greenhouse gases” — water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide — are all naturally occurring elements, a ruling classifying them as “pollutants” as that term was intended by the authors of the Clean Air Act in 1963 was absurd on its face, but that didn’t stop the five justices from imposing their political will on U.S. society.

Since implemented by the Obama EPA, the endangerment finding has served as the foundational basis for the vast expansion of climate change regulations impacting every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy, dramatically increasing the cost of energy for all Americans. The climate alarm hysteria over carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food and the basis for all life in Planet Earth, was also the motivational basis for every aspect of the Biden-era efforts to force taxpayers to bear the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy subsidies.

So, what has changed between 2007 and today to make Administrator Zeldin and President Trump think their attempt to reverse this endangerment finding would survive all the court challenges that would arise from the climate alarm community?

First, there is the dramatic shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy is no longer on the court, nor are the other four justices who issued the majority decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Where the Court was evenly divided in 2007, today’s Supreme Court is made up of a decisive 6-3 originalist majority with three justices appointed by Donald Trump himself during his first presidency.

But an even more decisive difference now stems from last year’s reversal of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case. As I wrote here at the time, the Chevron Deference, established as a legal doctrine in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1984, required the federal judiciary to defer to the regulators’ judgments about the governing statutes whenever the statutory intent was vague and open to interpretation.

That doctrine of law led directly to the vast expansion of the regulatory state for the 40 years it was in effect. The question now becomes whether, in the absence of that doctrine, regulators at the EPA truly have the authority to regulate atmospheric plant food in the same way they regulate particulate matter and other forms of real air pollution.

A successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA endangerment finding would then put every element of the Obama/Biden climate agenda in jeopardy.

Mr. Trump likes to say he wants to bring common sense back to government. This is one big way to do exactly that.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Related Topics:#ClimateAgenda #DailyCaller #DavidBlackmon #DonaldTrump #USEnergy EnvironmentalProtectionAgency

Up Next

Trump’s tariffs made Ottawa suddenly start talking about new east-to-west pipelines, but how long will it last?

Don't Miss

“The Invasion of our Country is OVER”: Trump reports lowest illegal crossings in history

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 12 hours ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 14 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Censorship Industrial Complex

School Cannot Force Students To Use Preferred Pronouns, US Federal Court Rules

Published on November 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jaryn Crouson

“Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”

A federal appeals court in Ohio ruled Thursday that students cannot be forced to use preferred pronouns in school.

Defending Education (DE) filed the suit against Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) in 2023, arguing the district’s anti-harassment policy that requires students to use the “preferred pronouns” of others violates students’ First Amendment rights by “compelling students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs.” Although a lower court attempted to shoot down the challenge, the appeals court ruled in a 10-7 decision that the school cannot “wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar.”

Because the school considers transgender students to be a protected class, students who violated the anti-harassment policy by referring to such students by their biological sex risked punishments such as suspension and expulsion, according to DE.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy,” the court wrote in its opinion. “Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”

OLSD did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

“We are deeply gratified by the Sixth Circuit’s intensive analysis not only of our case but the state of student First Amendment rights in the modern era,” Nicole Neily, founder and president of DE, said in a statement. “The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis, and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square.”

“Despite its ham-fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at DE, said in a statement. “A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”

Business

Bill Gates Gets Mugged By Reality

Published on November 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.

For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.

Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.

AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.

What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.

Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”

I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.

(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.

(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.

(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.

I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.

If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.