First Built to Tackle Pollution, EPA Now Cast as Obstacle to Growth
August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), established in 1970 to combat rampant pollution and protect public health, is increasingly viewed by critics as a barrier to economic growth under the Trump administration’s aggressive deregulatory agenda. Once heralded for addressing visible environmental crises like smog-choked cities and burning rivers, the EPA now faces accusations of overreach from industries and conservative leaders, who argue its regulations stifle innovation and burden businesses. A recent Law.com article titled “First Built to Tackle Pollution, EPA Now Cast as Obstacle to Growth” (published August 22, 2025) highlights this shift, while environmental advocates warn that dismantling key protections, such as the 2009 endangerment finding, could exacerbate climate change and public health risks.
The EPA’s Origins: A Response to Crisis
Founded on December 4, 1970, under President Richard Nixon, the EPA emerged during a time of undeniable environmental degradation. Smog blanketed cities, the Cuyahoga River caught fire due to chemical pollution, and hazardous waste dumping was rampant. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring had galvanized public concern, and the first Earth Day in 1970 amplified demands for action. The EPA, led by its first administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, was tasked with setting air and water quality standards, regulating pollutants, and supporting state-level enforcement. Landmark legislation like the Clean Air Act (1970) and Clean Water Act (1972) empowered the agency to reduce visible pollution, leading to dramatic improvements—new passenger vehicles today emit 98–99% fewer tailpipe pollutants than in the 1960s, and air quality in cities like New York has visibly improved.
Shifting Perceptions: From Protector to Obstacle
Over the decades, the EPA’s expanded authority, particularly through regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions, has drawn criticism from industries and conservative politicians. The Law.com article notes that as the agency tackled complex issues like climate change, critics began portraying its rules as “costly, burdensome, and an overreach of federal power.” This sentiment has intensified under the current administration, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin leading a sweeping deregulatory push. Key actions include:
- Repealing the Endangerment Finding: On July 29, 2025, the EPA proposed rescinding the 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger public health, a move Zeldin called “the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” This finding underpinned regulations limiting emissions from vehicles, power plants, and factories. Critics, including environmentalists and former EPA leaders like Christine Todd Whitman, argue that repealing it ignores “overwhelming and incontrovertible” scientific evidence, potentially undermining global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
- Rolling Back Power Plant and Vehicle Rules: The administration has targeted Biden-era rules restricting pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants and tailpipe emissions, which aimed to reduce 7 billion metric tons of emissions and save drivers $6,000 per vehicle in fuel costs. Zeldin claims these regulations harm consumers by raising prices and limiting choice, though environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund call the repeal “illegal and cynical.”
- Curtailing Enforcement: A March 2025 memo announced the EPA would no longer shut down energy production absent an “imminent threat,” reducing oversight in poorer communities disproportionately affected by pollution. This has drawn accusations of abandoning environmental justice initiatives.
Industry and Political Backlash
Conservative groups and industry leaders, such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, praise the deregulatory efforts, arguing they “unleash American energy and reduce costs for families.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Daren Bakst claims that greenhouse gas emissions are “de minimis” and do not justify regulation. However, the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups have expressed concerns about losing federal climate standards, which provide legal certainty and shield against lawsuits. Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official, noted to NPR that no major industry groups actively pushed for the endangerment finding’s repeal, highlighting potential risks for businesses in a patchwork regulatory environment.
Environmental and Legal Challenges
Environmental advocates warn that dismantling EPA regulations could lead to “the greatest increase in pollution in decades,” per Amanda Leland of the Environmental Defense Fund. The 12 hottest years on record since 2009 underscore the stakes, with climate scientists like Scott Saleska likening the repeal to “pressing the accelerator” toward a cliff. Legal challenges are mounting, with groups like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council vowing to fight in court, arguing that the EPA’s actions contradict settled science and the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings, such as those limiting lower courts’ ability to block White House actions, may complicate these efforts. Additionally, the EPA’s termination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and environmental justice initiatives has sparked outrage, particularly in communities burdened by industrial pollution.
Public and Social Media Reaction
Public sentiment on X reflects a polarized divide. Some users support deregulation, with one stating, “EPA’s been strangling businesses for years—time for a reset.” Others express alarm, with posts like, “Repealing the endangerment finding is like denying gravity. Climate change is killing us.” These posts, while indicative of public views, are not conclusive evidence and require verification.
Looking Ahead
The EPA’s transformation from a pollution-fighting agency to a perceived obstacle to growth raises critical questions about balancing economic development with environmental protection. While the administration claims deregulation will save trillions in “hidden taxes,” critics argue it jeopardizes public health and global climate goals. As legal battles loom and public hearings on the endangerment finding continue, the EPA’s future role remains uncertain. New Orleans’ resilience post-Katrina, a story of recovery amid climate challenges, serves as a reminder of what’s at stake if environmental protections falter.
Sources: Law.com, The New York Times, NPR, US EPA, ABC News, PBS News