Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said the Trump administration’s repeal of the Obama-era EPA Endangerment Finding is already delivering savings and marks the culmination of a regulatory process that began with a day one executive order in January 2025.

During an interview with Glenn Beck, Zeldin was asked how quickly Americans could expect to see financial benefits.

“How long before we start to see those savings?” Beck asked.

“Immediately,” Zeldin responded.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Beck noted that major policy changes often take time to work through the system.

“Everything takes time,” Beck said.

Zeldin said the effort to repeal the endangerment finding was initiated as soon as President Donald Trump took office for his second term.

“The President came in January of 2025, this was a day one executive order,” Zeldin said.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“So as far as you know, signaling to auto manufacturers that the President was focused on it. That was a day one message that was sent.”

He said the administration formally announced its intention to pursue the repeal in March.

“We announced on March 12 that we were going to be pursuing this effort,” Zeldin said.

“We did the public comment. We followed all of the rules of the Administrative Procedures Act.”

Zeldin said he personally reviewed the final decision before signing it.

“I read the final decision before signing it yesterday, and this thing is airtight,” he said.

He pointed to two Supreme Court decisions that he said were central to the administration’s approach: Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA.

“I referenced Loper Bright a second ago, is that the Supreme Court case overturning the chevron doctrine,” Zeldin said.

According to Zeldin, the Obama administration relied on an expansive interpretation of the Clean Air Act when it issued the endangerment finding in 2009.

“When the 2009 endangerment finding was done, the Obama administration, the EPA administrator was was creatively interpreting the Clean Air Act to say, well, if it doesn't say, I can't I guess that means we can,” Zeldin said.

“Well, the Supreme Court said in Loper Bright that's not how it works. You have to follow the best reading of the law,” he added.

Zeldin also cited the Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA.

“And then I also reference West Virginia versus EPA as an example, the major policies doctrine if you're going to do trillions of dollars of regulation, that is something that is for Congress,” he said.

He criticized the structure of the original endangerment finding, arguing that it stretched statutory language beyond its text.

“And as far as this decision itself, it was loaded with so many mental leaps,” Zeldin said.

“They said that when carbon dioxide was mixed with five other well mixed gasses, some of them not even emitted from vehicles that it contributes, not causes, contributes to global climate change that you won't find that section 202, the Clean Air Act, and they say global climate change endangers public health and welfare without analyzing the local and regional impacts, which is the way that it was always done for decades.”

Zeldin said prior EPA actions focused on local and regional impacts when applying the Clean Air Act, and he argued that the 2009 finding departed from that approach.

“When you actually dig into what the law says, the Obama administration decided, well, I guess we have to change the law,” he said.

He said the administration at the time sought legislative support but ultimately proceeded without congressional approval.

“They tried to get the votes in Congress, and then when they couldn't get the votes, they said, Well, I guess we're just going to have to do it anyway,” Zeldin said.

Looking ahead, Zeldin described the repeal as final.

“Well, fast forward to 2026 game over. The endangerment finding is gone,” he said.

WATCH:

The repeal marks a significant shift in federal environmental policy, reversing a foundational determination that had underpinned numerous climate-related regulations since 2009.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.