Impact to advertisers of White House withdrawal of EPA climate change endangerment finding.

In a move that divests EPA of the authority to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in air emissions, on Thursday, the White House will withdraw EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding, which under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, had underpinned EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases.  The EPA's Endangerment Finding had been authorized by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), in which the Court found that greenhouse gases are “pollutants” covered by the Clean Air Act.  White House Press Secretary Leavitt called it "the largest deregulatory action in history."

One of the first rules depending on the EPA's Endangerment finding would have restricted emissions from medium and light duty vehicles beginning with model year 2027.  The rule's notice cited the transportation sector as of the the largest contributors to US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  This followed Executive Order 14037 (“Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,” August 5, 2021), which had set a goal for 50 percent of U.S. new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030.

A primary technology for reducing GHG emissions from vehicles has been the sale of  “zero emission” vehicles, aka electric vehicles.  In 2009, at the time of the original rule, the government expected sales of electric vehicles would exceed those of fossil fuel vehicles before the middle of the century.  This has not proved to be the case, as fossil fuel vehicle sales have been resilient.  In the intervening years, electric vehicle sales have dropped.  

EPA also published a rule restricting carbon emissions from power plants, which envisioned carbon capture and storage technology, as well as shifts to natural gas, anticipating major emissions reductions from that sector.   The basis for that rule was challenged in the famous case of West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and the Trump Administration is now repealing it.  

By themselves, neither rule change directly affects advertisers.  However, the White House action sends a message that it and supporters will challenge climate change-inspired activity by business or investors.

In another recent example, the Federal Judicial Center's Manual on Scientific Evidence, which is used by judges to provide training and background on the use of science in the  courtroom, has withdrawn its chapter on climate change, reportedly under pressure from Republican Attorneys General.    The Center, led by Chief Justice Roberts, had recently updated the manual in December 2025, adding 90 new pages on the science associated with climate change. The chapter was withdrawn after the Attorneys General of 22 states wrote a letter to the House, expressing concern that the chapter might unduly influence judges presiding over pending climate change lawsuits.   Among other things, the letter took issue with who wrote the chapter and the pending climate change litigation.

What should advertisers do now? If possible, lay low for a while.  Existing carbon commitments should be honored to the extent feasible.  State disclosure requirements, such as in California, may also impact climate claims.  However, it may increase legal risk from a product marketing perspective to make new or stronger commitments.  That is not to say that companies shouldn't undertake good faith efforts to reduce emissions.  However, given the shifting regulatory landscape and politicization of climate change, it may not be productive to advertise about it.