Three recent actions by Trump that shocked the world

Yet the absurdity of international politics lies in this: when a bully is powerful enough, victims end up scrambling to save face for him. Second, exploiting Canada’s moment of crisis. U.S.-Canada relations have recently deteriorated sharply—even a nearly completed cross-border bridge was publicly blocked by Trump, who demanded the U.S. hold 50% ownership rights. Although Canada fully funded the bridge and, per agreement, would split toll revenue evenly with the U.S. after recovering its investment, Trump refused to accept this arrangement and insisted on immediate 50-50 ownership. Contractual integrity? Contractual integrity is imposed only on the weak; the strong draft the terms—and never bother reading them. On the evening of February 11, Trump lashed out at Canada on social media: “For years, Canada has taken advantage of the United States on trade. They are among the most difficult countries to deal with in the world—especially regarding our northern border. Tariffs have given us easy victories. Republicans must maintain this!” If he’d made such remarks days earlier, the world might have shrugged—it’s simply Trump’s style. But these comments came at an especially sensitive time for Canada. The day before, Canada suffered a severe mass shooting—nine people killed (including the shooter) and 25 injured—the deadliest such incident in Canada in recent years. Canada observed nationwide mourning, lowered flags to half-staff, and Prime Minister Mark Carney suspended all other duties to focus entirely on managing the tragedy. Trump’s response? To demand payment at someone else’s funeral. I saw a Canadian respond angrily: “Yesterday, as Canada mourned one of the most devastating tragedies in our history—and as world leaders sent messages of condolence, compassion, and support—this orange jerk had this to say…” Followed by an indignant expletive. Oh, Canadians, Canadians—how did you become so coarse? Third, declaring greenhouse gases no longer harmful. This move left the world utterly baffled. For decades, conventional wisdom held that greenhouse gases harm the environment, accelerate global warming, and necessitate urgent climate action—including cutting emissions, pursuing low-carbon development, and building a green economy. Many countries acted accordingly: solar and wind energy expanded rapidly, and electric vehicles began replacing gasoline-powered cars. But Trump rejected this consensus—not only rejecting it, but demolishing the very foundation of trust. On February 12, he announced the formal revocation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases.

Trump revokes greenhouse gas endangerment finding—and seeks to ‘revive’ coal? A battle over the ‘right to develop’

My first reaction upon hearing this news was stunned disbelief. On February 12, 2026, Trump announced from the White House the immediate revocation of the EPA’s landmark 2009 Endangerment Finding—which determined that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and welfare. Legally, this means carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles, power plants, and factories are no longer classified as pollutants posing health risks under U.S. federal law. My immediate thought: This feels like a return to the last century. But upon reflection, the issue is likely far more complex. A nation doesn’t reverse course overnight—there must be deeper logic at play. So I dug deeper, and the more I researched, the clearer it became: this is fundamentally a contest over the ‘right to develop’ and responsibility—not a simple clash between ‘pro-environment’ and ‘anti-environment’ forces. One executive order dismantles 16 years of regulatory bedrock First, let’s clarify exactly what Trump revoked. In 2009, under President Obama, the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding under the Clean Air Act, formally concluding that six greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide and methane—pose potential threats to public health and welfare. This seemingly dry document served as the ‘master switch’ enabling all federal climate regulations over the past 16 years. Once a substance is legally deemed harmful, the EPA is obligated to regulate it. Relying on this finding, the U.S. government could legitimately impose increasingly stringent vehicle emission standards, require power plants to cut carbon emissions, and drive society’s transition toward clean energy. In essence, it formed the foundational cornerstone of America’s entire climate change mitigation framework. Now, the Trump administration is removing that cornerstone. This move wasn’t impulsive. The timeline is precise: On January 20, 2025—the first day of Trump’s second term—he signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” directing the EPA to reassess the legal validity of the 2009 finding. On July 29, 2025, the EPA formally proposed revoking the finding. Finally, on February 12, 2026, the ‘wrecking ball’ dropped decisively. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin dubbed this action “the largest single deregulatory action in U.S. history.” Trump’s administration justified the move bluntly and forcefully: it claims the 2009 finding “lacks legal basis” and represents the EPA “exceeding its statutory authority.” For decisions of such magnitude…

Trump EPA Ends Climate Regulations for Power Plants

6 days ago

The Trump administration's EPA announced the rescission of Biden-era emission mandates for fossil-fuel power plants at the G20 summit, projecting $310 billion in savings while facing anticipated legal challenges from environmental groups.

bloomberg

2026-01-23

EPA Limits Health Impact Consideration in Chemical and Turbine Rules

2026-02-12

US EPA rescinds rule that was basis for federal CO2 regulations

2026-02-12

EPA Officially Rescinds Endangerment Finding

2026-02-20

EPA moves to rescind much of a 2024 chemical safety rule

2026-03-03

As the EPA formalizes end of research office, critics fear health impacts