The Brief

The Trump administration's plan to undo a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare poses lots of risks for corporate America.

The Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding has served as the legal basis for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act since 2009. The finding concludes that the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere endangers people's health and the well-being of communities. Reaching that determination was a prerequisite to set limits for the pollution. Getting rid of that authority would lead to the repeal of "all greenhouse gas standards" at the federal level, according to the EPA, amounting, it says, to "one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history."

Companies have long complained that the government's efforts to rein in heat-trapping pollution are impractical. But a lot of businesses want the EPA to be in charge of setting national standards of some kind, according to proponents and legal experts, because it helps shield them from lawsuits and creates a predictable environment in which to make big, long-term investments.

"I look at what the administration wants to accomplish with regards to our national security and winning the AI race — we want to have expansive energy production. We have that opportunity. We can do that affordably, and we can do it while we're managing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," says Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, whose members include major electricity producers and a trade group for the natural gas industry.

"I would like to focus more on that, than changes to these regulatory policies," Jacobson says, "which will cause disruption in planning and moving forward with projects we need today."

Jeff Holmstead, an environmental lawyer at the firm Bracewell, says he doesn't know of any major industry groups that pushed the EPA to reverse its position on the dangers posed by climate pollution.

"Several of them have opposed it," says Holmstead, who was an EPA official under then-President George W. Bush. "And I know that a number of companies were trying to persuade the administration not to do it."

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for oil and gas companies, told NPR that it "continues to support a federal role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions."

The EPA said in a statement to NPR that Congress never authorized the agency to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin "has long been on the record that the climate is changing," the agency said. "EPA's proposal is primarily legal."

The Trump administration said this spring that it was reconsidering the endangerment finding as part of a sweeping initiative to roll back environmental rules. At the time, Zeldin said the goal was "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion."

Public hearings on the EPA's plan are scheduled for this week.

Rain from Hurricane Ian in 2022 floods a street in Charleston, South Carolina. Neighborhoods in Charleston are flooding more often as climate change raises sea levels and drives more intense rainstorms.

(

Scott Olson

/

Getty Images

)

Companies use EPA regulations as a defense in lawsuits

Environmental advocates, public health experts and former EPA employees say the Trump administration's proposal contradicts a long-standing scientific consensus that climate pollution, mainly from burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, is raising global temperatures and driving more intense storms, floods and wildfires that threaten communities.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist whose work is cited in the EPA proposal and in an Energy Department report on the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, said in an online posting that the Trump administration "cherrypicks figures and parts of studies to support a preconceived narrative that minimizes the risk of climate change."

The EPA said in a statement to NPR that it "considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions made, and assumptions used, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding are accurate and consistent" with the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act. The Energy Department said in a statement that its climate change report "critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence — not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations."

The impacts of rising temperatures are being felt in communities around the United States. And states and localities have filed dozens of lawsuits in recent years alleging fossil fuel companies misled the public for decades about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. The lawsuits seek money to help communities cope with risks and damages from global warming.

Those cases have been filed in state courts. In some instances, the EPA's current regulation of climate pollution has helped protect oil and gas companies from litigation.

A state judge in South Carolina recently dismissed a lawsuit that the city of Charleston filed against companies in the oil and gas industry, in part because, the judge said, greenhouse gas emissions are an issue for the federal government to deal with.

"One of the main defenses that the oil companies are raising in these lawsuits pending in state courts is that there is preemption by the federal Clean Air Act," says Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School. "If the federal Clean Air Act is no longer regulating greenhouse gas emissions through EPA, then that defense could go away."

Weakening a defense used by the fossil fuel industry could expose companies to more legal risk, Holmstead says. "There [are] plenty of people out there who want to bring lawsuits," he says, "and it seems like this would just invite a lot more litigation."

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, says the EPA's proposal to stop regulating climate pollution doesn't affect the oil and gas company's defense. Regardless of what the Trump administration does, the Supreme Court has already ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are covered by the federal Clean Air Act, Boutrous said in an emailed statement to NPR.

But Trump administration supporters think the Supreme Court is poised to overturn that ruling.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, said in written comments to the EPA that the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 2007 case in which it labeled carbon dioxide as "air pollution" under the Clean Air Act. The group notes that the five justices in the majority on that case are gone from the court. The comments were submitted on behalf of four California businesses and trade groups, including a company that uses natural gas boilers to make tomato products and a trucking association whose members are subject to EPA climate regulations.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin testifies before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment in May. The EPA has proposed undoing a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare.

(

Kevin Dietsch

/

Getty Images

)

Regulatory debate highlights tensions on the right

Holmstead says it's a toss-up what the Supreme Court would do now.

The court historically has been reluctant to reverse prior rulings, Holmstead says. But he says the court's conservative supermajority "probably would agree that Congress didn't clearly intend for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

Such a ruling could create havoc for businesses, according to a trade group for electric utilities. In a 2022 Supreme Court brief, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) said that having the EPA regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency's authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said, adding: "This would be chaos."

"Industry really has accepted the endangerment finding. They have accepted that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are pollutants and that something needs to be done with that," says Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group.

But in the conservative movement, "there's an element out there that just wants to pretend that [climate change] is not a problem," Murphy says, "and that this is something that snowflakes and soft folks on the left are screaming about."

EEI said in a statement to NPR that it supports EPA "establishing clear, consistent regulatory policies that drive energy infrastructure investment and strengthen America's economic and energy security."

The fact that the EPA is moving ahead with its plan to stop regulating climate pollution despite serious concerns from corporations highlights a growing divide between the business and ideological wings of the Republican Party, says Holmstead, who under George W. Bush's administration ran the EPA office that develops air pollution regulations.

"Traditionally, Republican administrations have believed in trying to reduce the regulatory burden, but I think they've paid more attention to the concerns of the business community," Holmstead says. "And I don't want to suggest that the Trump administration is impervious to those concerns. But for ideological reasons, they are doing a number of things that U.S. business is not supportive of."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Some of the nation's leading defense lawyers have been trying to wrap their heads around what they consider abnormal behavior by the U.S. Department of Justice over the past year.

Now, they're debuting a tool to help track criminal cases that appear to involve irregular charging practices, including aggressive legal theories and possible political retribution against President Donald Trump's foes.

"We created the Case Tracker because you cannot defend against an enemy you cannot see," said Steven Salky, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area who oversees the project. "The Tracker is intended to spotlight for the next several years the unusual cases being prosecuted by the Department of Justice."

The new database includes the federal cases against Sean Charles Dunn, who threw a sub sandwich at a federal immigration officer, and Jacob Samuel Winkler, a homeless man accused of directing a laser pointer toward the Marine One presidential helicopter. Juries in Washington, D.C., acquitted both men.

The tracker, sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), also monitors cases where government charges of resisting federal law enforcement have been undercut by videos and eyewitness accounts from protesters.

Last week, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi batted away allegations that politics have motivated federal law enforcement decisions.

"I came into office with the goal of refocusing the Department of Justice on its core mission after years of bloated bureaucracy and political weaponization," Bondi said. "The Department of Justice's core mission is to fight violent crime; protect the American people; and defend the rule of law above all else. While our work is never done, we have made tremendous progress to make America safe again."

But judges and juries have been turning a skeptical eye toward the work of the Justice Department. Federal jurists have questioned whether the executive branch is complying with court orders on immigration and other issues at the heart of Trump's agenda — giving rise to concerns that federal prosecutors will no longer get the benefit of the doubt in court.

Grand juries across the U.S. have rejected efforts by prosecutors to bring indictments, once considered to be a cinch because of the low bar to charge defendants at that early stage in the criminal process.

The new tracker features a map that allows people to follow some of these trends across states, a way to search for specific statutes, and links to key court filings and judges' decisions.

"This tracker is an essential tool for an era where federal overreach has become the standard operating procedure," said NACDL Executive Director Lisa Wayne.
Copyright 2026 NPR

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has entered the fray around the fate of embattled Olympics head Casey Wasserman, saying he should resign for his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The comments, made on CNN Monday, turn up the heat on Wasserman, who has been under fire since a series of flirty 2003 emails between him and Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced in files released by the Justice Department. Wasserman said last week he would sell his namesake talent agency but remain in his role leading the Olympic Games.

"My opinion is that he should step down," Bass told CNN's Dana Bash.

It was a shift for Bass, who at first declined to weigh in on whether Wasserman should stay or go. And it comes after councilmember Nithya Raman entered the mayoral race — she and four other other councilmembers have said the Olympics head should step down.

But even the mayor of Los Angeles has only limited ability to influence the make-up of the private organizing committee tasked with putting on the Olympics in two years' time.

Despite its role as host city and financial guarantor of the coming mega-event, the city of Los Angeles isn't the one calling the shots on the Olympic Games. LA28 is in charge, with Wasserman at the helm.

And last week, the executive committee of LA28's board of directors said it was keeping Wasserman on top.

"LA28, which is the committee that is involved with the Olympics, has the discretion. The board made a decision," Bass said on CNN. "I think that decision was unfortunate."

LA28 operates mainly behind closed doors

The board's decision — and Bass's comments — highlight a dynamic that has some in the city increasingly uncomfortable as the Games draw nearer.

When the city of Los Angeles made a deal to play host for the 2028 Olympics, it agreed to cover cost overruns — exposing taxpayers to an essentially unlimited amount of risk. But it handed LA28 the reins to fundraise, execute and finance a privately run Games.

" Now we're seeing the perils of hiding an Olympic bid behind a private curtain," said Jules Boykoff, a politics professor at Pacific University who studies the Olympics.

LA28 has to report to the city council periodically, and the mayor has six appointees on LA28’s board. But beyond that, the organizing committee mainly operates behind closed doors and without the transparency required of government agencies.

LA28 has not said which of its 35 board members are on the executive committee that determined Wasserman’s fate. The meeting was private. A statement from the board's executive committee said that it had brought in outside counsel to review Wasserman's past interactions with both Maxwell and Epstein, and that Wasserman had cooperated with the review.

"The Executive Committee of the Board has determined that based on these facts, as well as the strong leadership he has exhibited over the past ten years, Mr. Wasserman should continue to lead LA28 and deliver a safe and successful Games,” the statement read, in part.

Bass's office confirmed that three of her appointees are on the executive committee: lawyer Matt Johnson, real estate developer Jaime Lee, and labor leader Yvonne Wheeler.

Mike Bonin, head of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute and a former L.A. city councilmember, told LAist that those appointees present a potential source of leverage for the city.

"I think a lot of people are beginning to feel more like, 'Alright, where is our voice in this? How is it being heard?'" Bonin said. "People probably want to know more about what the mayor is saying to her appointees. And what are her appointees saying to the broader board?"

LAist reached out to the three board members for their comments. Wheeler declined to comment. Johnson and Lee did not respond before publication. The mayor's office also did not respond to a request for more information on how Bass is corresponding with city-appointed board members and whether she spoke with them before the Wasserman vote.

The LA28 board also has several prominent allies of President Donald Trump, who were quietly added to the roster late last year.

Richard Grenell, the former director of national intelligence in the Trump Administration, said in a post on X that Bass's statements against Wasserman spelled trouble for the city.

"Karen vs Casey is very troubling for the Olympics," he wrote. "The LA Olympics are now in turmoil — and the city is facing questions about being able to pull them off."

Calls for transparency grow

The storm around Wasserman comes as some in the city have already been demanding more transparency from Olympics organizers.

Citing fears around how ramped up immigration enforcement might affect the Games, the city council passed a motion requesting that LA28 produce a detailed report on President Donald Trump's federal Olympics task force on security. But the council has no way to enforce the motion, and LA28 hasn't yet produced such a document.

Others have expressed alarm that a key agreement between the city and LA28 over what extra city resources Olympics organizers will need to pay for — like policing — is more than four months overdue. If the agreement leaves L.A. exposed to unexpected or additional expenses, taxpayers could end up paying many millions.

Los Angeles civil rights attorney Connie Rice told LAist that's where local officials, including the mayor's lead on special events Paul Krekorian, should be focusing their energy.

" Casey Wasserman's resignation is a red herring," she said. "What the mayor, the city attorney, and the council and Mr. Krekorian need to be focused on is making sure that taxpayers of the city of Los Angeles aren't left holding a billion dollar bag of cost payments that they shouldn't have to pay."

A divided Los Angeles Unified School District Board voted 4-3 Tuesday to issue preliminary layoff notices to 657 employees, as part of a plan to reduce the budget after several years of the district spending more money than it brings in.

Even as California is poised to fund schools at record high levels, Los Angeles Unified and other districts have grappled with increased costs. For example, LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone. For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit.

The “reduction in force” vote is the first step in a monthslong process that could result in layoffs for a still-to-be determined number of positions.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the focus on cutting jobs at the district’s central office was intended to protect schools.

“Does it do it at 100%? No,” Carvalho said. “But this approach reflects the deliberate effort to shield students and frontline educators and support staff from the most severe impacts of this fiscal downturn.”

What positions will be affected? 

LAUSD staff estimate the proposed cuts include less than 1% of its more than 83,000 member workforce.

Notices will go out to 657 positions concentrated in the district’s central office, but which also work at local schools. More than a third of these are IT technicians, by far the largest group.

The plan also calls for reduced hours and pay for several dozen positions.

The board also voted to issue layoff notices to an additional 2,600 contract management employees and certificated administrators as part of a “routine action that’s been taken annually,” said Saman Bravo-Karimi, the district's chief financial officer

What about teachers? 

LAUSD said it expects to need 350 fewer elementary and 400 fewer high school teachers next year because of declining enrollment and the closure of some non-classroom positions.

While some educators may be moved from one school to another, the district said it does not plan to issue layoff notices to teachers for the 2026-2027 school year.

The district's decision is based on attrition and the assumption that a new labor agreement will lower high school junior and senior class sizes, requiring more educators.

“This is a calculated risk that the district is taking on in order to maintain the stability at the schools throughout the spring semester,” said Kristen Murphy, associate superintendent of talent and labor relations .

Were deeper cuts considered? 

Yes.

Murphy said schools also identified about 800 additional certificated position closures, but that the people in those positions would be moved to different jobs as they became available.

The district is also paying $50-60 million to restore planned cuts to classified positions at school sites.

“We have worked with every possible solution we can think of to reduce that number of initial [layoff] notices and keep as many of our employees as possible,” Murphy said.

How did the board vote? 

Yes:

• Board Member Sherlett Hendy Newbill (BD-1)
• Board President Scott Schmerelson (BD-3)
• Board Member Nick Melvoin (BD-4)
• Board Member Tanya Ortiz Franklin (BD-7)

“Every person in our LAUSD community contributed to the academic gains last year,” Schmerelson said. “So whether these RIFs are approved or not we will continue to fight until the very last minute for funding.”

No:

• Board Member Rocío Rivas (BD-2)
• Board Member Karla Griego (BD-5)
• Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD-6)

“I will not accept reductions in force as a default response without a clear discipline showing that this is the most responsible and strategic course available to us,” Rivas said.

Rivas, Gonez and Melvoin are on the ballot in this year’s election.

What do employees say?

Representatives from the unions that represent LAUSD school support staff, teachers and principals asked the board to reconsider the proposed cuts at the start of the meeting and to seek additional funding from the state amid growing revenues from the artificial intelligence industry.

“You can decide to be brave and lead in the state by example and show what a fully functioning school system is,” said SEIU Local 99 Executive Director Max Arias.

SEIU Local 99 members, which include classroom aides, IT technicians and gardeners, are currently weighing whether to give their leaders the authority to call a strike. Members of the union that represents LAUSD teachers, psychologists, counselors and nurses voted to authorize a strike last month.

The unions, as well as several board members, called on the district to share more information about contracts with third-party companies before making cuts to staffing.

“This framing is not an honest engagement around budget priorities,” said Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of United Teachers Los Angeles. “It is a tactic used to scare workers and scare our school communities.”

What happens next? 

By March 15, layoff notices will go out to the 657 impacted employees as well as employees with less seniority in positions that could be “bumped,” to accommodate the employees in the impacted positions.

The district plans to freeze hiring until it can evaluate whether an employee included in the reduction in force can fill any vacant position.

“The district can’t issue these notices and then hire new people if vacancies come up,” Murphy said.

Staff said the board would vote to finalize any un-rescinded layoff notices in May or June.

What else has the district done to save money?

Tuesday’s vote is part of a $1.4 billion fiscal stabilization plan first approved last June.

Bravo Karimi said additional money-saving strategies included transferring $496 million in reserved funding to the district’s general fund and using $796 million to fund future labor agreements.

LAUSD staff’s report to the board said that even if the board approved the reduction in force notices, more cuts will be necessary to balance the budget in future years.