The Four-Level Reduction of Federal Regulatory Capacity

When EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin repealed the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding in May, the legal stakes exceeded any ordinary rule reversal. A ruling in the administration's favor could, as the challenge itself contemplates, permanently prevent any future EPA administration from regulating carbon emissions ^[1]. The finding is the legal predicate for every carbon rule the agency has ever written — remove it, and the authority to write the next one disappears. That move is not an outlier. It is one level of a four-level reduction in the federal government's regulatory capacity, each level operating simultaneously: 702 regulations proposed for elimination ^[2], the endangerment finding as the legal foundation being stripped, roughly 8,000 senior federal employees reclassified as at-will with an estimate of up to 50,000 ^[3], and the Chemical Safety Board slated for defunding ^[4]. The breadth — rules, foundations, people, and institutions, all at once — is what distinguishes this from a targeted policy reversal ^[2][1][3][4]. The rule-level is the most visible. The 702 regulations proposed for elimination span energy efficiency standards, environmental review requirements, DEI rules, FDA nutrient labels, and three dozen firearms regulations, with the White House projecting $1.5 trillion in savings ^[2]. The EPA has rescinded drinking water limits for four PFAS chemicals ^[5], weakened federal coal ash disposal standards ^[6], and rolled back coal plant wastewater standards — the last tied explicitly to the energy demands of AI data centers ^[7]. The SEC has proposed repealing its climate risk disclosure rule entirely ^[8]. Across these rollbacks, the administration frames each as a correction rather than a removal of protection.

The Trump EPA is committed to Make America Healthy Again by ensuring clean air, land, and water—and by taking on PFAS the right way, across the full lifecycle and built to last. — Lee Zeldin

So, we protect the air and we protect your pocketbook. — Lee Zeldin

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins used the same structure when proposing the climate disclosure repeal, casting it as a return to proper agency scope rather than a retreat from transparency ^[8]. The foundation-level is the endangerment finding repeal. It is the only action aimed at eliminating the legal basis for regulation itself rather than adjusting a specific rule. A ruling for Zeldin would not merely pause carbon regulation; it would foreclose it, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court ^[1]. The people-level is the June 3 executive order reclassifying senior federal employees as at-will. OPM Director Scott Kupor made the criterion explicit.

In order to affect the policy priorities of the administration, we need to have people who are in these senior policy making decisions willing to and capable of obviously carrying out those directives. — Scott Kupor

James Sherk of the Domestic Policy Council described the target more bluntly.

If you have employees who are trying to undermine the wishes of American people by pushing of their own agenda or just incompetent in what they’re doing, agencies have a longstanding typical time getting rid of them. — James Sherk

The reclassification covers GS-15 and above — the career officials who translate statute into enforcement — and OPM's estimate of up to 50,000 suggests the current 8,000 is a floor, not a ceiling ^[3]. The institution-level is the quietest and, in some ways, the most revealing. The Chemical Safety Board investigates the root causes of chemical disasters. As former OSHA deputy Jordan Barab noted, the CSB does work no other agency performs.

A lot of the ways the industry has modernized to improve safety are based on recommendations that came out of the CSB. — Jordan Barab

The administration proposes eliminating it entirely, alongside a 7.5 percent cut to OSHA and a 10 percent cut to the federal mine safety agency ^[4]. The same administration that frames PFAS rescission as a procedural correction is also eliminating the board that investigates chemical explosions. The judiciary is now the primary constraint on each of these four levels, and it is being asked to hold on all of them at once. Federal courts have overturned four of six Endangered Species Act-weakening rules as "arbitrary and capricious" ^[9]. A district court ruling that the offshore wind freeze was "arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful" led the administration to abandon that fight ^[10]. The Supreme Court overruled several tariff policies, requiring the federal government to refund hundreds of billions of dollars ^[11]. But the administration has also violated court orders in at least 31 lawsuits in its first 15 months, with judges accusing agencies of bad faith and the Justice Department of "rewriting court orders" ^[12]. Justice Sotomayor warned of the consequence.

Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law. — Sonia Sotomayor High School

The courts are pushing back on individual actions. But the four-level structure means the judiciary must sustain that pushback on rules, foundations, personnel, and institutions simultaneously ^{[12][9][10][11]}.