The nation’s leading scientific body has issued a stark warning about the state of climate science, asserting that the connection between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and the growing harms to health, welfare, and the environment is now “beyond scientific dispute.” The new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine comes at a pivotal political moment, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration seeks to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” that has served as the legal backbone of federal climate regulation for more than a decade.
The endangerment finding, issued during the Obama administration, established that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health and welfare. That conclusion gave the EPA authority to regulate such emissions under the Clean Air Act, and it has since underpinned a wide range of federal policies, from vehicle efficiency standards to rules on power plant pollution. Although industry groups and some lawmakers have long sought to undo it, the finding has withstood repeated legal challenges, including those that reached the Supreme Court. The new effort to overturn it marks the most direct and far-reaching challenge to its legitimacy since its inception.
According to the National Academies, the scientific record has only grown stronger since 2009. The report, spanning over one hundred pages, draws from thousands of peer-reviewed studies and decades of observational data. It emphasizes that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise because of human activity, that global temperatures are increasing as a result, and that the consequences are already evident in the form of extreme weather, rising sea levels, deteriorating air quality, and direct risks to human health. The panel concluded that what was once viewed with some degree of uncertainty is now overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and that the harms to the United States are clear, measurable, and accelerating.
The authors also highlighted the mounting health risks tied to climate change. Higher temperatures increase the dangers of heat stroke and cardiovascular illness, particularly among vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions. Worsening air pollution compounds respiratory problems like asthma. Meanwhile, heavier rainfall, hurricanes, and droughts disrupt water supplies and agriculture, affecting food security and regional economies. The report stresses that each additional ton of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere amplifies these risks, underscoring the urgency of cutting emissions sooner rather than later.
The timing of the Academies’ findings is critical. In July, the EPA proposed a formal repeal of the endangerment finding, arguing that its legal and scientific basis had weakened over time and that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority. The EPA cited a draft report from the Department of Energy that raised doubts about climate models and potential impacts. That DOE analysis, however, has been widely criticized by the broader scientific community for its lack of transparency, selective use of data, and reliance on a small working group of skeptics with longstanding ties to fossil fuel interests. In contrast, the National Academies’ process included experts from multiple disciplines, public review, and strict conflict-of-interest policies, lending it far greater credibility.
Legal challenges are expected to follow swiftly should the EPA move ahead with repealing the finding. Environmental organizations, several state attorneys general, and advocacy groups have already signaled their intent to sue, arguing that overturning the endangerment finding would not only undermine U.S. climate policy but also disregard settled law. The 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if they were found to endanger public health and welfare. With the Academies’ report affirming that the threat is more robustly documented than ever, opponents of repeal argue that the EPA would face steep legal hurdles in justifying its position.
The political dimensions are equally significant. Republicans in Congress have already criticized the Academies’ findings, framing them as an attempt to discredit the administration’s deregulatory agenda. Some lawmakers have suggested that the report reflects partisan influence rather than scientific objectivity, despite the Academies’ long-standing reputation as an independent advisor to the federal government. Meanwhile, environmental groups and public health advocates see the report as a vital counterweight to efforts to dismantle climate protections, warning that rolling back federal oversight could leave communities more exposed to worsening climate impacts.
The EPA’s public comment period on its repeal proposal is set to close later this month, after which the agency is expected to finalize its decision. Whatever the outcome, the National Academies’ findings will likely shape the debate not just in Washington, but also in the courts and in state capitals across the country. Many states have enacted their own climate policies, and several governors have pledged to continue pursuing emissions reductions regardless of federal actions. Still, the absence of a strong federal regulatory framework could slow national progress and complicate international commitments under agreements such as the Paris accord.
Beyond the political and legal implications, the Academies’ report sends a broader signal about the urgency of the climate crisis. Scientific evidence now shows that the window for avoiding the most catastrophic consequences is narrowing rapidly. Wildfires, floods, heat waves, and coastal erosion are no longer distant possibilities but present realities. For many scientists, the report is not just a reaffirmation of past findings but also a warning that inaction will carry escalating costs for communities, infrastructure, and the economy as a whole.
As the debate over climate policy continues, the Academies’ message is clear: the science is no longer in question. The only uncertainty lies in the policy choices the nation will make in response. With the health, safety, and well-being of millions of Americans at stake, the coming months will test whether lawmakers and regulators heed that warning—or push forward with efforts to dismantle the very framework designed to protect the public from a warming world.
