WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump appeared with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday to announce a major policy shift, the formal repeal of the 2009 “endangerment finding.”

That Obama-era determination said greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Trump and Zeldin called the move the largest deregulatory action in US history. They also said it removes the federal government’s main legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Inside the White House Roosevelt Room, Trump criticized the policy as government overreach. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a ridiculous Obama-era policy,” he said. He added that the change would end greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles for model years 2012 through 2027 and later. Trump described the repeal as the biggest deregulation effort the country has ever seen.

Zeldin, a former New York congressman, backed up Trump’s message and aimed at previous administrations. He called the 2009 finding “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.” He also accused the Obama and Biden teams of using it to push strict climate rules that, in his view, raised costs and hurt the economy.

Trump signed an executive order

“Today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” Zeldin said. He claimed the repeal would save taxpayers more than $1.3 trillion, about $3,800 per person, by expanding consumer choice, helping the auto industry, and reducing everyday costs.

The endangerment finding dates back to December 2009. The EPA issued it after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). At the time, the agency concluded that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, pose risks to health and the environment.

Since then, the finding has served as the legal backbone for many federal climate rules. Those include tailpipe limits for cars and trucks, power plant standards, and other climate-related programs. By pulling it back, the Trump administration undercuts the legal support for those rules and could make it harder to regulate emissions from vehicles, factories, refineries, and other sources going forward.

The announcement ends a fast-moving review that started early in Trump’s second term. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA to re-examine the finding’s legal basis.

Zeldin moved the process forward in March 2025 with a formal proposal to reconsider it, then advanced a repeal plan in July. Thursday’s final action came after public comment periods and internal legal work that referenced recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA.

Supporters in the energy sector and among conservative lawmakers cheered the decision. They say the original finding stretched the Clean Air Act past what Congress intended. In their view, the resulting mandates drove up energy costs and limited domestic production. They also argue the repeal will support US oil and gas development, bring back auto jobs, and end what Zeldin has described as an “ideological crusade” against fossil fuels.

Climate Alarmists to Sue

Environmental groups and other critics responded with sharp opposition. They argued the repeal rejects well-established climate science and protects big polluters while putting public health at risk. Organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, said they plan to challenge the move in court.

Former EPA officials and scientists said the evidence linking greenhouse gases to harm has only grown since 2009. They also pointed to recent years of record or near-record heat and costly extreme weather.

“This rule doesn’t change the reality of climate change, it just denies it,” said one former Biden-era EPA adviser. The Sierra Club called the repeal a “brazen assault” on American families.

The group warned it could lead to higher health costs tied to dirtier air, along with worse storms and floods, plus rising insurance bills. Meanwhile, legal analysts expect lawsuits from states, environmental organizations, and possibly cities. Those fights could push the issue back to the Supreme Court.

The ripple effects could reach far beyond vehicle rules. For example, the repeal may wipe out limits on emissions from power plants and industrial sites. It could also slow or scrap Biden-era vehicle standards. In addition, it may tie the hands of future administrations that want to address climate pollution without new legislation from Congress, which remains difficult in a divided Washington.

The move also tracks with conservative policy plans, including Project 2025, that have urged limits on federal climate authority.

As reactions pour in, the repeal highlights the country’s deep divide over climate policy. For Trump and Zeldin, it’s a win for deregulation and cost relief. For opponents, it’s a major setback in efforts to curb warming and reduce climate risks. Legal challenges now look likely, so the final impact may take months or years to sort out.

Related News:

Trump Takes Aim at China’s Critical Minerals Control With Project Vault

WASHINGTON D.C. – President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to get a second aircraft carrier strike group ready for the Middle East. The order ramps up pressure on Iran’s leadership as growing reports describe a harsh crackdown on nationwide protests, with claims that tens of thousands have been killed in recent weeks.

The decision comes as independent estimates put the death toll from Iran’s security response at more than 30,000 in a single week. Some sources and activists describe the violence as genocide against the Iranian people. The carrier move signals a tougher U.S. posture toward Tehran, mixing military deterrence with ongoing diplomacy tied to Iran’s nuclear program and its actions across the region.

Trump confirmed the shift in recent interviews. “We have an armada that is heading there, and another one might be going,” he told Axios earlier this week. He was referring to the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which is already operating in the Arabian Sea under U.S. Central Command.

A second carrier group, reportedly one that could include ships such as the USS George H.W. Bush or USS George Washington, is being prepared for fast deployment, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reports.

Pentagon officials have directed teams to ready the added strike group. That force typically includes guided-missile destroyers, cruisers, and carrier-based fighter aircraft, all designed to provide sustained airpower and deterrence. Analysts say two carrier groups in the area would expand U.S. options for strikes, surveillance, and defense of partners, while also sending a blunt message to Tehran.

“This isn’t just about posturing,” said Brian Carter, a military expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “A second carrier doubles the tactical airpower available and signals that the United States is prepared for sustained operations if necessary.” The buildup follows Trump’s earlier warning that Iran’s leaders would “pay a big price” for what he described as attacks on protesters.

The USS Abraham Lincoln entered the region in late January, as unrest that began in late December 2025 spread amid reports of economic collapse, currency weakness, and long-running anger over Iran’s authoritarian rule.

Horrific toll: Over 30,000 dead in one week of repression

The protests started in late December, driven by soaring inflation and food shortages. They quickly turned into open calls for regime change. By early January, security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), responded with what human rights groups and witnesses describe as extreme violence.

Reports from inside Iran, compiled by groups such as the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) and supported by accounts from medical professionals, describe a sharp rise in deaths.

Time Magazine cited senior officials from Iran’s Ministry of Health who estimated as many as 30,000 people were killed on January 8 and 9 alone, based on hospital records. Other reporting, including Iran International, has cited totals above 36,500 during the worst days of the crackdown, framing it as one of the bloodiest episodes of state repression in recent history.

Witnesses describe security forces firing live rounds into crowds, using weapons said to be banned, and carrying out mass arrests followed by forced disappearances. Internet shutdowns have made outside confirmation difficult. Still, leaked documents, morgue accounts, and videos moved out of the country describe widespread killings, including shootings that hit protesters, bystanders, and children.

Rights advocates, including Amnesty International, have described the events as mass unlawful killings and crimes against humanity. Some doctors and opposition figures have used even stronger language, calling it “genocide under the cover of digital darkness.” Iran’s government has acknowledged roughly 3,000 deaths and blames many on “rioters” or foreign-backed actors, but those official numbers are heavily disputed.

International pressure has grown. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Iran has cited conservative estimates of at least 5,000 killed and warned that unverified reports could be far higher. Families who speak publicly about loved ones say they face threats, which further limits what can be confirmed.

Geopolitical stakes: nuclear talks, regional tensions, and Trump’s pressure

The carrier order comes as indirect U.S.-Iran talks continue through Oman, focused on Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump has kept a mix of threats and diplomacy, saying the U.S. could strike if negotiations fail. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington added urgency, with reports pointing to shared intelligence on Iran’s missile capabilities.

Iranian leaders have pushed back, accusing the U.S. of using the unrest as a pretext for intervention. Tehran has also rejected broader negotiations and says it won’t make nuclear concessions while facing military pressure.

The expanded U.S. naval presence also serves a defensive role. It is meant to help protect U.S. bases and regional partners, including Israel and Gulf states, amid concern about retaliation by Iran or allied proxy forces.

As the second carrier group is readied, Iran’s internal crisis is colliding with rising superpower pressure. For Iranians protesting in the streets, the U.S. military buildup may look like a sign that the outside world is paying attention to a government accused of turning its weapons on its own people.

Trump has framed the choice in simple terms: reach an agreement or face consequences. With reports saying more than 30,000 lives may have been lost in days, the stakes are enormous.

No one knows if the U.S. escalation leads to talks, a direct clash, or a collapse in Tehran. What is clear is that the Middle East is entering a dangerous phase.

Related News:

Trump Takes Aim at China’s Critical Minerals Control With Project Vault

WASHINGTON. D.C. – A newly public FBI interview tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case is drawing attention as the Department of Justice continues releasing large batches of Epstein-related records.

The interview, conducted in 2019, includes former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter’s account of a phone call he says he received in July 2006 from then-businessman Donald Trump.

According to the FBI summary, Trump called shortly after news spread about the early Palm Beach investigation into Epstein. Reiter told agents that Trump thanked local authorities for pursuing the case and said “everyone has known he’s been doing this.” Reiter said Trump described Epstein’s conduct with teenage girls as something people already talked about in New York and in local circles.

Reiter also recalled Trump urging investigators to pay attention to Ghislaine Maxwell, whom he described as Epstein’s “operative.” In the interview summary, Trump allegedly told police that Maxwell was “evil” and said they should focus on her. Reiter added that Trump claimed he had once been around Epstein when teenagers were present and “got the hell out of there.”

Those details don’t match the long-running picture often presented in major news coverage that frames Trump as closely tied to Epstein’s criminal activity.

Over the years, reporting has highlighted their social overlap in the 1990s and early 2000s, references in flight logs, and an old Trump quote describing Epstein as a “terrific guy” who liked “beautiful women… on the younger side.” Critics have used those items, especially during election cycles, to suggest something more serious.

This newly surfaced FBI record points to a different version of events, one where Trump distances himself and contacts law enforcement soon after the investigation becomes known.

People familiar with the timeline have also pointed to accounts that Trump had already banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago around that period, reportedly after an incident involving inappropriate behavior toward a member’s teenage daughter. In Reiter’s telling, Trump was among the “very first people” who reached out once the probe was in the open.

Pushing Back on Familiar Headlines

For years, common narratives have treated Trump and Epstein as near inseparable, often leaning on selective quotes and unverified claims to imply deeper involvement. During the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, and again in later cycles, stories circulated tying Trump to Epstein’s private island or to misconduct with minors. Those claims have repeatedly failed to produce court-tested evidence or findings in official investigations.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed in late 2025, required the release of many records that had been partially withheld. As more pages become readable, Trump’s name appears often, but many mentions are routine, such as messages, contact notes, or passing references.

The 2006 call described by Reiter stands out because it reads as favorable to Trump’s position. It also tracks with Trump’s public comments over the years, including claims that he barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago and cut ties after hearing about behavior he described as “creepy.”

Reiter’s interview was recorded in 2019 and is now part of the DOJ’s phased releases. The Miami Herald was among the first outlets to spotlight the document, noting it could shift how people talk about what Trump knew and when. Trump supporters say it weakens the “Trump-Epstein buddy” storyline that they believe was used to harm him politically.

Attempts to Tie Epstein Directly to Trump

From the first Palm Beach investigation in 2005 to 2006 through Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death, political opponents have tried to use any Trump-Epstein connection as a weapon. At the same time, Bill Clinton’s repeated appearances in flight logs did not always draw the same level of sustained attention, while Trump’s documented contacts were often treated as more central.

Democratic strategists and media voices have floated theories of Trump’s complicity in hearings and news cycles. Some recent releases also include tips and allegations submitted to the FBI, sometimes arriving close to elections. The DOJ has cautioned that many claims in the broader file set are not credible and were not pursued.

In that context, the Reiter account matters because it presents Trump as someone who, after the investigation became public, called the police to express support and to point them toward Maxwell’s role. The call also came before Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and later federal scrutiny, placing it earlier than many of the talking points that surfaced years later.

What This Could Mean for the Larger Epstein Record

The continuing release of Epstein documents, described as running into the millions of pages, has exposed a wide web of contacts that includes politicians, wealthy donors, and celebrities. Some names raise new questions.

Others add context to relationships that have been argued about for years. Reiter’s description of the 2006 call adds a concrete data point to one of the most politicized storylines in the Epstein saga.

Trump has long denied knowing about Epstein’s crimes while they moved in some of the same social circles. He has said the relationship ended because of Epstein’s behavior. The newly unredacted FBI summary supports that defense in at least one key way: it records a law enforcement leader saying Trump encouraged investigators to pursue the case.

As additional files become public, attention may move away from rumor-driven claims and toward what the documents actually show. For victims and for the public, more transparency can help separate hard facts from political messaging, even when the results don’t fit anyone’s preferred narrative.

Related News:

Trump Approval Rating (February 2026 Poll Results, Approve vs Disapprove)