A startling revelation has surfaced, accusing the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency of building its climate policy on a pre-determined legal outcome. Newly unearthed internal communications from 2009 suggest a deliberate strategy to justify regulations before the science was fully considered.
The Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), a nonpartisan watchdog, presented evidence in a filing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These documents paint a picture of officials who viewed the “Endangerment Finding” – the cornerstone of the administration’s climate agenda – as inevitable, and then constructed regulations around it.
Key to this narrative is Lisa Heinzerling, then the EPA’s climate policy counsel. A February 2009 email reveals her expectation of issuing the endangerment finding within 100 days, explicitly linking it to future regulatory obligations under the Clean Air Act.
Heinzerling’s words were stark: the finding would “trigger regulatory obligations.” This email, sent just weeks after President Obama’s inauguration, suggests a pre-planned course of action rather than a response to evolving scientific understanding.
Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, believes the documents confirm long-held suspicions. He argues the Endangerment Finding was fundamentally flawed from the start, representing a massive expansion of bureaucratic power.
The timing of this discovery coincides with the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle Obama-era energy regulations. Former EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued the finding imposed “trillions of dollars in hidden costs” and restricted consumer choice.
However, those efforts faced immediate legal challenges from organizations like the American Public Health Association, who contend the Trump administration is arbitrarily dismissing established scientific findings. The case remains before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The GAO argues that the very origins of the Endangerment Finding should be enough to invalidate it. Their amicus brief highlights a process that appears to have bypassed the deliberative requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Another Heinzerling memo, this time addressed directly to President Obama, underscored the “scientifically and legally straightforward” nature of the decision. She framed it as a readily available outcome, waiting only for political will.
Adding another layer to the controversy, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urged President Obama to issue the finding for political expediency. She warned of mounting criticism if the decision was delayed past Earth Day, suggesting the finding was inevitable regardless of scientific debate.
The GAO’s filing sharply criticizes this approach, stating there was “no evidence that at any time it was an open question whether the Endangerment Finding would be issued.” This suggests a predetermined outcome, driven by political considerations rather than scientific rigor.
Despite repeated attempts, neither Heinzerling nor Jackson offered a response to inquiries regarding these revelations. The implications of these unearthed communications could reshape the legal battle over the future of climate regulation in the United States.
