Get Healthy!

• Posted January 14, 2026

EPA May Stop Assessing Health Benefits When Setting Air Pollution Rules

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may soon stop putting a dollar value on the health benefits of cleaner air.

The move, experts warn, could lead to weaker protections against some of the most dangerous pollutants.

Internal agency emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times show that, under President Donald Trump, the EPA plans to change how it evaluates the costs and benefits of clean-air rules.

For decades, the EPA has used health data such as premature deaths and asthma attacks avoided, to help justify limits on air pollution.

That could soon change.

Internal emails reveal that the EPA plans to stop assigning a dollar value to the health benefits of reducing two major pollutants: Fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, and ozone. 

Instead, the agency would focus mainly on the cost to businesses of following these pollution rules.

Experts say the change could make it easier to repeal limits on pollution from coal plants, oil refineries and other industrial sites, leading to dirtier air in many communities.

PM2.5 particles are so small they can enter the lungs and bloodstream. Long-term exposure has been linked to asthma, heart disease, lung disease and early death. 

Ozone, a key part of smog, forms when pollution from cars and factories reacts in sunlight. It can trigger breathing problems.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA tightened limits on PM2.5 that industries could emit. The agency estimated those rules could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays in 2032 alone. 

The EPA also estimated that for every $1 spent on reducing PM2.5, there could be as much as $77 in health benefits.

The Trump administration argues that those health estimates are too "uncertain." Under the new approach, the EPA would still mention health effects but would no longer include them in cost-benefit calculations.

“EPA, like the agency always has, is still considering the impacts that PM2.5 and ozone emissions have on human health,” EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran told The Times in an email. “Not monetizing does not equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact.”

Others strongly disagree.

“The idea that EPA would not consider the public health benefits of its regulations is anathema to the very mission of EPA,” Richard Revesz, faculty director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, told The Times.

“If you’re only considering the costs to industry and you’re ignoring the benefits, then you can’t justify any regulations that protect public health, which is the very reason that EPA was set up,” he added.

Internal emails show EPA leaders plan to include language in future clean-air rules stating that “historically, the E.P.A.’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone.”

It goes on to say that “to rectify this error, the E.P.A. is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”

That language has already appeared in a regulatory impact analysis posted online earlier this week.

The shift has drawn support from business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long criticized how the EPA weighs health benefits. 

But legal experts warn the change could cause challenges in court and make pollution rollbacks harder to defend.

More information

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has more on particulate matter.

SOURCE: The New York Times, Jan. 12, 2026