Trump Administration Claims Climate Rule Reversal Saves Trillions, But Analysis Shows Higher Costs
The Trump administration has finalized its repeal of the endangerment finding, a legal determination that forms the foundation for nearly all federal climate regulations. President Trump and Environmental Secretary Lee Zeldin announced the move on Thursday, asserting it would save the United States an astonishing $1.3 trillion by 2055. However, the Environmental Protection Agency's own regulatory impact analysis reveals a different story—one where costs significantly outweigh the purported benefits.
EPA Analysis Reveals Contradictory Numbers
Late Thursday night, the EPA published documentation supporting the administration's $1.3 trillion savings claim. According to the agency, these savings would come primarily from two sources: approximately $1.1 trillion from reduced vehicle prices and another $200 billion from decreased electric vehicle purchases and reduced spending on charging infrastructure.
Yet a critical chart within the same analysis indicates the United States would incur $1.4 trillion in additional costs through 2055 from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance expenses, traffic congestion, and noise pollution. An additional $40 billion in costs would stem from reduced energy security, increased refueling time, and lowered "drive value"—costs associated with operating vehicles.
When totaled, these figures suggest the repeal of the endangerment finding would impose approximately $1.5 trillion in costs, overshadowing the projected $1.3 trillion in savings. This calculation doesn't even account for substantial social and climate-related expenses that could further tip the balance.
Fuel Price Projections Raise Questions
The EPA analysis suggests that benefits would outweigh costs only in a scenario assuming severely lowered fuel prices—a projection based on an Energy Information Administration report. The document's authors state this low fuel price case was included to account for "policies being implemented by President Trump that are intended to drive down the price of gasoline."
However, critics argue this scenario lacks realism. "That EIA's low oil price scenario was never meant to show the effect of any policies that Trump would implement," said Kathy Harris, who leads clean vehicle programming at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's designed to showcase uncertainty and volatility in domestic oil prices due to international forces on the global oil market."
Harris further noted that the EPA provides no evidence supporting the claim that Trump's policies could drive down fuel prices to the extent envisioned in that scenario. "They're cooking the books here," she added.
Gasoline Prices Projected to Increase
Despite President Trump's repeated pledges to lower gasoline prices for Americans, the regulatory impact analysis indicates eliminating greenhouse gas standards would actually increase gasoline prices by approximately 75 cents per gallon by 2050.
"That's about a 29% increase in gasoline prices compared to if we maintain the policies that are in place," Harris explained. The analysis compares two scenarios: one where vehicle regulations continue and another where they are repealed, with the latter showing clear negative impacts on fuel costs.
Unaccounted Social and Climate Costs
The administration's analysis notably fails to examine additional costs that could arise from increased global warming due to deregulation. According to projections from the Environmental Defense Fund, repealing the endangerment finding could increase the country's greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 10% by 2055, potentially imposing up to $4.7 trillion in additional expenses related to harmful climate and air pollution.
"This is aligned with what we've been seeing from this administration, where they focus on the cost to industry while completely ignoring the costs to health and climate," Harris stated.
Critics Point to Broader Implications
Environmental advocates argue the repeal will disproportionately benefit wealthy oil industry donors while harming working-class and vulnerable Americans. "Like most actions within this administration, this decision lacks any regard for everyday people and seems to be a play to deepen its loyalty to fossil fuel companies and billionaires who have proven that they are willing to take actions that endanger human life," said Abre' Conner, director of climate and environmental justice at the NAACP.
In response to criticism, an EPA spokesperson defended the administration's approach: "The Trump EPA is following the law, ending the bogus overreach of previous administrations done by agenda-driven climate zealots. These activists picked winners and losers and regulated our economy to the tune of trillions at the expense of the American people with zero measurable environmental impact to show for it."
The spokesperson added that those expressing outrage are "simply upset that their preferred ideology can no longer bypass Congress and the will of the people to dictate how Americans live, work, and drive." The agency did not address specific questions about the economic analysis discrepancies.
