Wednesday, February 18, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: The EPA has been regulating greenhouse gases to combat climate change for nearly 20 years. Last week, the Trump administration retracted the findings. Columbia University law professor Michael Gerrard joins The Excerpt to share his insights on ongoing legal, political, and scientific issues.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
The Trump administration announced last week that it was rescinding a 2009 decision called the Endangerment Study. This discovery was the basis for EPA assuming the right to regulate greenhouse gases for nearly 20 years. How will its repeal affect the Americans on the Supreme Court who are likely to participate in this heated debate?
Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, February 18, 2026. Michael Gerrard will be there to help clarify some of the legal, political and scientific issues associated with a warming climate. He is one of the nation’s leading environmental lawyers and a law professor at Columbia University, where he is the founder and director of the university’s groundbreaking Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Thank you so much for having me, Michael.
Michael Gerrard:
I’m glad to be with you.
Dana Taylor:
Lee Zeldin, who served as EPA administrator under President Donald Trump, has repealed or significantly weakened dozens of Biden-era environmental regulations since taking office in January 2025. Can you tell us about some of the most important ones and how they influenced you?
Michael Gerrard:
Well, he loosened regulations on clean cars. There were important regulations that required cars to be more energy efficient. California had the ability to adopt stronger standards, which helped push electric vehicle adoption in California and other states. So that was all wiped out. It also removed the cleanliness standards for power plants.
Dana Taylor:
As you know, Zeldin also canceled many of the project grants that EPA has traditionally funded. What are some of the biggest ones?
Michael Gerrard:
There were various programs to help low-income and minority communities install rooftop solar, increase energy efficiency, and other areas to reduce fossil fuel use. Many of them have been wiped out, but many are being challenged in court and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be.
Dana Taylor:
Well, last week’s big news was the rescission of the endangerment study. Can you briefly explain what this discovery is and how it was obtained?
Michael Gerrard:
So Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, a major federal law to clean the air. This has shown great success against various types of pollutants. However, the EPA under President George W. Bush had refused to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, stating that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases if it finds they pose a danger to public health and welfare. So, under President Obama, the EPA released this finding, this endangerment finding that greenhouse gases do pose a real risk to public health and welfare. This was the basis for many regulations issued under the Obama and Biden administrations, which the EPA has now rescinded under President Trump.
Dana Taylor:
Michael, what is the primary legal basis for the Trump administration to justify these changes?
Michael Gerrard:
We thought they would argue that the science of climate change is too shaky, but they seem to have wisely dropped that argument. And instead, they’re saying that regulating greenhouse gases is a very important thing with significant political and economic importance, and that the EPA can’t do it without explicit Congressional authorization, even though the language of the Clean Air Act makes it appear that the EPA can do it.
Another major argument is that greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles in the United States are a small part of the global climate problem and will not make a difference. However, in reality, if the United States’ transportation emissions were compared to a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
Dana Taylor:
There are also significant other lawsuits at the state and local level related to global warming and climate change across the United States. A few years ago, we spoke to youth activists in Montana who successfully sued the Bureau of Land Management to curtail the state’s oil and gas leasing process. Broadly speaking, Michael, have these lawsuits proven to be successful in supporting efforts to combat climate change? If so, how?
Michael Gerrard:
Well, some of them are. Montana has environmental rights provisions in its state constitution. That led to a landmark court case a few years ago, in which the state was found to be violating its constitution by ignoring climate change. Hawaii has a similar provision, and a lawsuit was settled last year when Hawaii agreed to organize its transportation system. New York and Pennsylvania have similar laws that are currently being litigated.
In addition, states and cities have filed about 20 lawsuits nationwide against fossil fuel companies seeking monetary damages for climate change. They have been going on for almost 20 years. We haven’t made a final decision yet. Let’s see what happens in them.
Dana Taylor:
And how are environmentalists responding?
Michael Gerrard:
Well, environmentalists are clearly furious and will soon file a lawsuit in the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, D.C., challenging this endangered finding. It will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court and we’ll see what happens there. But on the other hand, activity is occurring in many states. States continue to have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Although greenhouse gases from automobiles are preempted, states still have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources and many others, and many states are using that authority to regulate emissions and encourage the expansion of renewable energy.
Dana Taylor:
What does the scientific community say about climate change and greenhouse gas regulation today? And has it changed much from what they were saying 2030 ago?
Michael Gerrard:
Now, back in 2019, when the Extinction Endangerment study was first published, there was a ton of scientific evidence that fossil fuels are the main cause of climate change, and that climate change is in terrible trouble. There is now 10 tons of evidence of that. The Trump administration convened a group of six prominent contrarian scientists to release a report saying climate change isn’t that bad. A recent federal court ruling said the commission was established illegally. And a number of scientists, including a group put together by the National Academy of Sciences, wrote a bombshell report attacking the Trump administration’s research. In short, the scientific consensus is clear that climate change is happening, with dire effects, and that the main cause is the burning of fossil fuels.
Dana Taylor:
And can we get some perspective on how the United States compares to the rest of the world in terms of efforts to combat climate change?
Michael Gerrard:
The United States has been a leader in this effort and, under President Obama, played a major role in the Paris Agreement, a major international agreement reached in 2015. But President Trump took our country out of the Paris climate accord in his first term, Biden put us back together, and President Trump pulled us back together. So not only is the United States no longer leading the effort, it is leading the effort in a different direction. They are trying to push back and prevent other countries from taking action on climate change.
Dana Taylor:
The next United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Türkiye this November. Where will the last conference, COP 30, end? And what are the realistic expectations going forward?
Michael Gerrard:
At the last conference in Brazil, the US tried to work with Saudi Arabia, Russia and several other countries to delay action on climate change, and I think they will do the same again. So while many other countries in the world, led by Europe, are moving forward, the United States is moving in the opposite direction.
Dana Taylor:
Finally, Michael, what’s keeping you up at night regarding the legal status of all these climate change-related lawsuits that we’ve discussed today? And what gives you the most hope?
Michael Gerrard:
In other words, the world is on track to become hotter than scientists say it needs to be to avoid the devastating effects of climate change. We need to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy. And the most encouraging thing for me is the growth in technological advancements. Solar power, wind power, and battery storage are becoming much more efficient and much cheaper. They are making a real contribution to transforming the world’s energy system. There is also a lot of technological development going on in nuclear power, and we hope that these technologies will reach commercialization and provide an abundance of safe electricity for everyone to use.
Dana Taylor:
Michael, thank you for joining us on The Excerpt. It’s good to talk.
Michael Gerrard:
thank you.
Dana Taylor:
Thanks to senior producer Kaely Monahan for her production assistance. Executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think about this episode by sending a note to the podcast at usatoday.com. Thank you for your attention. I’m Dana Taylor. Tomorrow morning, we’ll be back with another episode of USA TODAY Excerpts.
