The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing a proposal to dismantle the methane emission rules imposed by the Biden administration in 2024, a move critics estimate could result in the loss of 58 million tons of methane and 590,000 tons of toxic air pollutants by 2038. The proposal was announced by President Donald Trump during a rally in Texas, in Lubbock, on the evening of Tuesday, October 27, in a political maneuver that precedes the midterm legislative elections next week.
The EPA's proposal, the preliminary text of which was examined by The Washington Sun, outlines three central changes: the elimination of the Methane Super Emitter Program, created by the previous administration to identify and respond to large leaks; the relaxation of leak inspection requirements and equipment upgrades for low-producing wells (accounting for less than 5% of the nation's oil and gas supply, but producing more than half of the sector's methane emissions); and the easing of restrictions on flaring, the burning of excess natural gas, which in 2023 was responsible for $5.6 billion in health costs and climate impacts in the U.S., according to research by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The political context is not subtle. Trump announced the measure during a campaign rally in Lubbock, Texas — a key region of American oil production — seeking to boost domestic production and pressure Republican candidates in the upcoming elections. According to Reuters, the president claimed the measure would "unleash an estimated 210 million additional barrels of oil." Trump's narrative is one of reducing costs for the industry and stimulating energy production, but the administration's history shows a systematic dismantling of environmental protections.
Since March 2025, when the Trump administration announced it would stop enforcing methane regulations, the oil and gas industry has leaked, vented, or flared natural gas worth nearly $7 billion, according to the EDF. This period of absent oversight would already equate to more than half of the annual economic value of natural gas in the U.S., suggesting the financial impact of inaction is colossal.
Opposition to the rollback comes from multiple fronts. Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said the rollback "would let oil and gas companies cut corners while families pay with their health." Metzger noted that oil and gas air pollution contributes to asthma attacks and premature deaths, while methane heats the planet. "Texans living near wells, including children at nearby schools and daycares, deserve stronger protections."
Jon Goldstein, Associate Vice President of Energy Transition at the EDF, criticized the proposal as a "get-out-of-jail-free card for polluters." "At a time when Americans are facing high energy costs, the EPA should not give oil and gas companies more room to waste a domestic resource," Goldstein said. "Almost $7 billion in energy value has been wasted since the administration stopped enforcing key methane protections."
The EPA's proposal also ignores the experience of states that have already implemented strict regulations. Colorado and New Mexico are two producer states that adopted rules similar to the 2024 EPA standards and continue to record increases in oil and gas production. Colorado became the first state to fully adopt the EPA's 2024 methane standards, including rules broadly supported by the state's largest oil and gas trade associations. This undermines the argument that environmental regulations harm production — the empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
What does this mean for the global climate? Methane is responsible for approximately 30% of current global warming and has a warming potential 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Reverting methane rules is, essentially, granting the fossil fuel industry a free pass to intensify emissions of one of the most climate-harmful gases at a critical moment in climate science. With global climate conferences approaching and pressure for emission reductions increasingly urgent, the United States' decision — the world's second-largest methane emitter — sends a devastating signal to international containment efforts.
The question that remains is whether short-term political pressure, especially in an election context, can outweigh the long-term needs of public health and climate balance. But perhaps the more immediate question is this: how many millions of tons of methane will be released while the final text of the proposal is debated and contested in courts — and what price nearby extraction communities will pay for it.
Sources: The Verge, Bloomberg, The Washington Sun, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund
✓ Independent sources cross-checked and verified before publishing
