At first glance, climate policy rollbacks and a military strike on Iran may seem unrelated: one deals with environmental regulation at home, the other with foreign policy and conflict abroad. But in 2026, they share deep connections in how the current administration frames U.S. national priorities.

Repealing the Endangerment Finding

Let’s start with the rescinding of the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Earlier this month the EPA under President Trump finalized the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane endanger public health and welfare. The 2009 ruling gave the EPA its authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The endangerment finding became the foundation of virtually all U.S. federal climate policy. It empowered the EPA to establish vehicle emissions standards, regulate powerful industrial polluters, and curtail greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and oil and gas facilities.

By rescinding that finding, the Trump EPA has unraveled that legal foundation, effectively eliminating federal greenhouse gas regulation and significantly weakening the agency’s ability to enforce climate policy. The final rule also eliminates reporting and measurement requirements for vehicle emissions.

This move represents one of the most consequential environmental policy rollbacks in U.S. history, undermining protections for air quality and climate health while rejecting a long-standing scientific consensus.

Without the authority of the 2009 finding, the EPA loses its central statutory basis for most climate regulations, opening the door to increased emissions, less federal oversight, and deeper disparities between state and federal policies. It also signals a clear ideological position against federal climate engagement and in favor of oil and gas companies.

The Attack on Iran

Both the repeal of the endangerment finding and the Iran conflict reflect a broader political agenda emphasizing the central influence of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. The EPA rollback is justified politically as removing what the Trump administration and its supporters call “overreach,” presenting less federal control as central to economic freedom and growth. On the other hand, the unprovoked military assault on Iran strengthens the power of the White House to act unilaterally in carrying out its foreign policy.

What unites the two is the unprecedented influence of big oil and gas corporations. Iran has the world’s second-largest reserves of natural gas and the third-biggest oil reserves. U.S. oil producers see Iran as a much better prospect than Venezuela and offered last month to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls.

“You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” a U.S. energy and geopolitics consultant observed, practically licking his chops. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.”

The Interplay of Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy

Climate policy and military strategy both shape global perceptions of U.S. leadership. The rollback of climate regulation obviously weakens U.S. influence in international climate cooperation. At the same time, war with Iran will undoubtedly further strain alliances and diplomatic partnerships important to tackling climate change collectively. In both cases, the U.S. is continuing to isolate itself globally.

Rescinding the EPA’s endangerment finding and launching a war against Iran are deeply related actions on the part of the Trump administration. Each represents a pivotal shift, one in how the U.S. engages with the science and policy of climate change at home, and the other in how it projects power abroad.

While different in substance, both illustrate how the fossil fuel industry exerts unchecked environmental and foreign policy influence in ways that endanger the long-term interests of the U.S. In a world increasingly interconnected by climate risk and geopolitical instability, these recent domestic and foreign policy decisions carry profound significance for the U.S and the world.