This was written by staff at the nonprofit newsroom CalMatters. It was republished by The Mendocino Voice in partnership with CalMatters to bring relevant nonpartisan news to Mendocino County readers. Learn more about CalMatters here.
SACRAMENTO, CA., 2/13/26 — The Trump administration formally rescinded the legal foundation of federal climate policy Thursday — setting up a new front in California’s long-running battle with Washington over emissions rules.
“Today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a White House press conference. “Referred to by some as the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach, the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding is now eliminated.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government may regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger public health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a scientific determination that greenhouse gases indeed were a threat. By withdrawing its own so-called “endangerment finding,” the EPA is abandoning its justification for federal tailpipe standards, power plant rules and fuel economy regulations.
California opposed the withdrawal of the endangerment finding when it was proposed last year, and is expected to sue over the decision.
California Air Resources Board executive director Steven Cliff testified at the time that the move ignored settled science.
“Thousands of scientists from around the world are not wrong,” Cliff said in his testimony. “In this proposal, EPA is denying reality and telling every victim of climate-driven fires and floods not to believe what’s right before their eyes.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Thursday that California would take the Trump administration to court over the decision.
“Donald Trump may put corporate greed ahead of communities and families, but California will not stand by,” Newsom said. “We will continue to lead because the lives and livelihoods of our people depend on it.”
Other states and environmental groups have also indicated they could sue. They include Massachusetts, which was part of the coalition of states that sued to force the federal government to curb greenhouse gases nearly two decades ago.
Eliminating the federal basis for regulating planet-warming gases will not halt California’s climate policies, most of which – from California’s market-based approach to cutting carbon pollution to clean energy mandates for utilities — rest on state law.
In fact, the decision may open the door for California to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, a possibility that lawmakers and regulators are actively weighing.
The reversal in federal policy could also undercut arguments that federal law blocks state lawsuits against oil companies and boosts interest in expanding California’s authority over planet-warming pollution within its borders.
California prepares for a fight
Ann Carlson, a UCLA law professor and former federal transportation official, has argued that aggressive federal action against climate policy “could, ironically, provide states with authority they’ve never had before.”
Writing in the law journal Environmental Forum, Carlson theorized that California could attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks directly under state law.

Federal law has preempted most states from setting local vehicle emission standards; California has, through a series of waivers granted under federal clean air law, obtained permission to set stricter standards than the federal government does.
This could help California’s efforts “in the long run,” Carlson wrote in an email Wednesday, “but of course withdrawing the United States from all efforts to tackle climate change is a terrible move. We should be leading the global effort, not retreating.”
In California, where cars and trucks account for more than a third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, California regulators at the air board and lawmakers are weighing in. When asked last year by CalMatters whether the air board would consider writing its own rules, Chair Lauren Sanchez said, “All options are currently on the table.”
“This is definitely a conversation,” Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, said during a Wednesday press conference held by the California Environmental Voters. “So stay tuned.”
Ripple effects in court and Sacramento
If Washington formally exits the field of carbon regulation, states may argue they have broader room to pursue liability claims tied to wildfire costs and other climate impacts, experts said.
California has sued major oil companies as recently as 2023, in an attempt to hold them responsible for climate impacts. Oil companies have frequently cited federal oversight as a reason to dismiss climate-damage lawsuits against them.
“California is struggling with wildfire costs, for example, which are linked strongly to a warming climate,” said Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley. “I think that opens up a lot of legal avenues for states like California.”
The federal pullback has prompted lawmakers to consider expanding the Air Resources Board’s powers.
Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, this week introduced a bill aimed at affirming the state’s power to curb pollution from large facilities that generate heavy truck traffic, such as warehouses and ports, which concentrate diesel exhaust in nearby communities.
“It’s no secret that the federal government and California are not seeing eye to eye — we’re not on the same page,” Garcia said at Wednesday’s news conference. “This is an opportunity for our state, for California to step in.”
This article first appeared at CalMatters here.

Here’s my problem with The Mendocino Voice. Everyone it interviews in this article supports the Endangerment Finding for CO2 and plans to fight for its reestablishment. Nowhere to be found is a comment from someone who would explain why the Endangerment Finding was removed. So, I will. The EPA argued in court that the Clean Air Act did not authorize the agency to regulate Greenhouse Gases out of a global concern. It cited the recent SCOTUS decision that said agencies could not expand their scope without clear Congressional direction. It also argued that GHG emissions are too small a fraction of global totals to meaningfully affect climate outcomes (de minimis), so regulations imposed unnecessary burdens without commensurate benefits. And it argued that the subsequent regulations took an enormous toll on our economy without any substantive benefits.
Hi John. Thanks for reading TMV. This article was actually not written by us. It was written by CalMatters. The Mendocino Voice did not interview anyone. There is a header at the top that says “This article is part of a partnership between the Mendocino Voice and nonprofit newsroom CalMatters to bring relevant nonpartisan news to Mendocino County readers. Learn more about CalMatters here.”
You can learn more about CalMatters here: https://calmatters.org/
We also welcome letters to the editor about news matters, even CalMatters articles. Feel free to send a letter 250 words or less to info@mendovoice.com.
But, once more, we did not write that article. It’s a republish from CalMatters. But, I’m glad it inspired you to comment and to share your thoughts.
I’ve never seen Mendo voice post a letter to the editor that didn’t align with its biased left wing narrative
Sarah Stierch this CalMatters article appears to be anything but non partisan. Just saying.