Michael Barbaro

Exactly.

Exactly.

Do lawyers agree with that argument?

They're mixed.

I mean, there are some conservative lawyers who think that the EPA has a really good case to make.

You know, environmental attorneys that we've spoken to have said that the George W. Bush administration made similar arguments to defend its decision not to issue an endangerment finding and lost.

But there's another argument that's linked.

Mm-hmm.

Since 2009, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against environmental regulations that require big transformational changes to industry and the economy.

And so the Trump administration is saying, based on that new legal landscape and the fact that so many of the regulations that have stemmed from the endangerment finding require, in their view, sweeping technology, economic changes.

Mm-hmm.

they're arguing that the source, the endangerment finding, should be overturned.

Fascinating.

If so many regulations that flow from the endangerment finding eventually get struck down by the Supreme Court, then the fruit of those regulations, the finding itself, should itself be seen as illegal.

Unless Congress explicitly gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which after decades they have never done.

And this Congress is very unlikely to ever give it that power.

Definitely not.

Okay, so now that we understand the Trump administration's arguments here, just explain how they're going to turn those arguments into the end of the endangerment finding.

What do we expect the administration to do to end the finding?

So what we expect is on Thursday, the administrator of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, who has said that he plans to drive a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion, his words, will announce the end of the endangerment finding.