Trump Administration’s EPA Plans to Exclude Health Impacts From Air Pollution Rules

For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has assigned an economic value to human life in its cost-benefit analyses when regulating air pollution. Although often viewed as uncomfortable, this practice enabled regulators to weigh the health benefits of reducing pollution—such as longer life expectancy and fewer illnesses—against the economic costs of implementing pollution controls. Every administration since the Reagan era has relied on this approach when shaping air quality rules.

That longstanding framework may soon change. According to a New York Times report, the Environmental Protection Agency under the Donald Trump administration plans to stop factoring human health into regulations governing ozone and fine particulate matter pollution. If implemented, the move would mark a sharp break from decades of regulatory precedent.

The dangers of air pollution have been well established for generations, which was one of the reasons the EPA was created under Richard Nixon. Ground-level ozone and delicate particulate matter (PM2.5) have long been linked to cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, including asthma, heart disease, and emphysema.

Ozone plays a protective role high in the atmosphere by shielding Earth from ultraviolet radiation. At ground level, however, ozone forms when nitrogen oxides from sources such as vehicles and power plants react with sunlight, creating smog. During periods of severe smog, ozone exposure can be particularly hazardous, even fatal, for vulnerable populations.

PM2.5 pollution poses even broader risks. Recent studies have linked delicate particulate matter to a wide range of conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Exposure during pregnancy has also been associated with low birth weight in infants. Globally, fine particulate pollution is estimated to contribute to as many as 10 million deaths each year.

The proposed policy shift comes as electricity demand from data centres continues to rise, with some facilities relying on higher-emission power sources. Elon Musk’s AI company xAI, for example, reportedly used dozens of unpermitted natural gas turbines to power its Colossus data centre near Memphis, Tennessee. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America has previously identified the region as an “asthma capital” due to pollution from transportation and industrial activity.

Business groups have welcomed the EPA’s proposed change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised the administration’s direction, saying it supports a more balanced regulatory approach. Marty Durbin, president of the chamber’s Global Energy Institute, said the organisation appreciates the administration’s efforts and looks forward to reviewing the EPA’s proposal.

If finalised, the shift would fundamentally alter how air pollution regulations are evaluated, removing human health considerations from decisions that have historically been rooted in both science and economics.