Trump's Pollution Control Rollback: What's The Real Impact?

Former US President Donald Trump has been accused of dismantling environmental protections and pollution controls during his time in office. In 2025, the Trump administration provoked outrage by announcing a list of 31 regulations it planned to scale back or eliminate, including rules limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants, and restrictions on the emission of mercury, a neurotoxin. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has argued that these rules impose regulatory costs and hidden 'taxes' on US families, but critics claim that the loss of protections will lead to more pollution and severe health consequences for Americans.

Trump's EPA plans to cut 31 pollution regulations

In March 2025, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a list of 31 regulations it planned to scale back or eliminate. The regulations targeted clean air and water protections, including rules limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants, and restrictions on the emission of mercury, a neurotoxin.

The EPA's own analyses show that the regulations would save the US economy far more money than they would cost businesses to implement new pollution controls, by a factor of around six to one. The regulations slated for repeal, affecting coal plants, cars, trucks and other sources of pollution, were set to deliver at least $254 billion in economic benefits annually via lowered healthcare costs and fewer sick days, among other improvements. By contrast, the cost of complying with the regulations is around $40 billion a year.

The Trump administration argued that the Obama administration overestimated the health risks associated with various environmental regulations, to the detriment of industry. The new plan, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), was hailed by industry representatives. However, environmentalists are fighting the administration's power plant regulation rollbacks, arguing that the new standards are so limited in the pollution controls they require that they could hamstring future administrations from addressing climate-altering pollution.

The EPA's move to cut pollution rules has been described as a blitzkrieg that has hit almost every major policy designed to shield Americans from toxic pollution, curb the worsening impacts of the climate crisis, and protect landscapes, oceans, forests, and imperiled wildlife. The administration's efforts to roll back restrictions on ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic air pollutant, and to revoke rules limiting power plants' emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, have also been criticized.

The Affordable Clean Energy rule

In June 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The ACE rule establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). The Trump administration argued that the Obama administration overestimated the health risks associated with various environmental regulations, hindering industry growth.

The ACE rule has three steps for implementation: First, the EPA determines BSER. Second, states develop a plan to implement BSER, taking into account considerations such as the remaining useful life of facilities and non-air environmental and energy outcomes. Third, regulated entities take steps to comply. The ACE rule empowers states to develop plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. It provides a list of "candidate technologies" that states can use when creating their plans and a new preliminary applicability test to determine if a change to a power plant is a "major modification."

However, the ACE rule has been criticised for several reasons. Firstly, it does not cap emissions, potentially resulting in increased carbon dioxide emissions. Secondly, it presents a narrow view of the EPA's regulatory authority, leading to fewer emissions reductions compared to the Clean Power Plan. The inflexible framework of the ACE rule goes against decades of scholarship and regulatory reform, aiming for smarter, more effective, and less expensive regulation. The ACE rule also does not require emissions reductions at every source, and data suggests it could lead to higher emissions at some plants and states.

The EPA has also been criticised for its approach to rulemaking, indicating its interest in removing the consideration of co-benefits, which are the positive externalities of a regulation that do not directly relate to its primary purpose. By excluding co-benefits, the EPA may undermine the legal basis for controlling certain pollutants and incur higher net costs. Overall, the ACE rule has been a controversial topic, with environmentalists fighting against the Trump administration's power plant regulation rollbacks and expressing concerns about the potential impact on climate change and public health.

Trump's vehicle emissions standards

In April 2020, the Trump administration announced new vehicle emissions standards, which were projected to result in an additional billion tons of carbon dioxide, increasing annual US emissions by about one-fifth. The new standards were part of a series of rollbacks of environmental rules and regulations by the Trump administration, which aimed to reduce the regulatory burden on industry.

The Trump administration argued that the Obama administration had overestimated the health risks associated with environmental regulations, to the detriment of industry. The new plan, called the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), did not cap emissions. The administration also repealed the Clean Water Rule and rewrote the EPA's pollution-control policies, including policies on chemicals known to be serious health risks, particularly benefiting the chemicals industry.

The vehicle emissions standards rollback was strongly criticized by environmentalists, who argued that it would result in severe and irreversible changes to the climate and harm public health. They also argued that the new standards were so limited in the pollution controls they required that they could hamstring future administrations from addressing climate-altering pollution. In March 2020, several environmental groups and 22 states filed legal briefs to fight the administration's attempt to loosen emission standards.

The new vehicle emissions standards also faced criticism from public health experts, who argued that the rollbacks would increase heart attacks, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, respiratory disease, and healthcare costs. In addition, the standards were criticized for weakening safeguards that protect public health and welfare, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rollbacks were also criticized for making the United States weaker economically by increasing gasoline bills, cutting jobs, stifling innovation, and increasing consumer fuel costs.

The Trump administration defended the new vehicle emissions standards, arguing that they would save automakers upwards of $100 billion in compliance costs and help US auto workers. Administrator Wheeler defended the change as a way to rectify inconsistencies in the current cost-benefit analyses used by the agency.

Trump's environmental protection rollbacks

In March 2017, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw and rewrite the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, with the aim of reviving the coal mining industry and lifting "burdensome EPA restrictions". The Trump administration replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which did not cap emissions. The administration also repealed the Clean Water Rule and rewrote the EPA's pollution-control policies, benefiting the chemicals industry.

In April 2020, the Trump administration announced changes to the way the EPA calculates the benefits of mercury controls, which would loosen restrictions on pollutants deemed too costly to control by the fossil fuel industry. The administration also targeted clean energy tax credits and pollution rules in its budget proposals. Trump's EPA planned to roll back or eliminate a 2015 limitation on coal-fired power plants releasing heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury into water supplies.

Trump's EPA also provoked uproar by announcing plans to cut 31 pollution regulations, including rules limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants, and restrictions on the emission of mercury. These rollbacks were projected to save nearly 200,000 lives and $254 billion in annual economic benefits. In addition, the administration froze climate spending, removed the US from the Paris climate accords, and set about rewriting pollution standards for vehicles and power plants.

The Trump administration's efforts to scale back environmental rules and regulations have been described as a blitzkrieg, with the second administration launching 145 actions in the first 100 days – a rate of more than one a day. These actions have often explicitly favored the fossil fuel industry, which donated heavily to Trump's presidential campaign. The administration has also been criticized for its mass firing of EPA staff and a decrease in enforcement of anti-pollution laws.

Trump's focus on fossil fuels

During his presidency, Donald Trump focused on maximising the production and use of fossil fuels in the United States. In his first 100 days in office, Trump launched more attacks on the environment than in his entire first term. He targeted almost every major policy designed to shield Americans from toxic pollution, curb the worsening impacts of the climate crisis, and protect landscapes, oceans, forests, and imperiled wildlife.

Trump's administration aimed to make fossil fuels cheap and abundant. They sought to ease environmental restrictions on power plants, speed up the construction of new plants, and fast-track permitting for transmission and pipeline projects. They also attempted to roll back emission standards for cars, trucks, and power plants, and to loosen restrictions on pollutants such as mercury, which has been deemed too costly to control by the fossil fuel industry.

Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provoked uproar by announcing plans to scale back or eliminate 31 regulations, including rules limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants, and protections for clean water. These regulations were projected to save nearly 200,000 lives and deliver at least $254 billion in economic benefits annually through lowered healthcare costs and fewer sick days. Despite this, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of environmental regulations were overestimated, and that the costs of implementing new pollution controls were too high.

Trump's actions have been criticised by environmentalists, former EPA administrators, and public health experts, who warn of severe and irreversible changes to the climate, increased health risks, and a less stable planet for future generations.

Frequently asked questions