Skip to the story
All StoriesPoliticsConflict & SecurityBusiness & EconomyScience & TechHealthClimateMedia
All stories
Politics25 outlets ran this4 min read

Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed

Economists found errors in cost-benefit calculations, estimating a $1.5 trillion reduction in benefits.

AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Published Updated
FILE – Traffic moves along Interstate 76 ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend in Philadelphia, May 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

What this story says

  • A study in the journal Science found the Trump administration's analysis for rescinding vehicle emission rules was based on flawed logic.
  • Economists identified errors in how the administration accounted for fuel savings, technology costs, and mileage.
  • Correcting these errors would decrease the estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, resulting in an overall cost of $670 billion.
  • The study authors stated the EPA analysis credited car buyers with only $0.23 of every $1 in fuel savings.

Who covered it

Left 28%(7)Centre 64%(16)Right 8%(2)

Percentages are shares of the 25 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .

Trust

60/100

Craft

70/100

Hype

20/100

25 sources · methodology

Missing from the right

Only 2 of the 25 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.

A reader who follows the right would not have seen this. We report the absence rather than explain it: outlets choose what to cover for many reasons, and we have no evidence about which one applies here.

A study by economists has concluded that the Trump administration's justification for scrapping vehicle emission rules was based on flawed logic. The research, published in the journal Science, identified errors in the administration's accounting of fuel savings, the price of technology, and vehicle mileage.

The Trump administration's analysis estimated that rescinding greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks would save Americans between $600 billion and $790 billion. However, the study authors found that correcting the errors in the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis would decrease the estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion. This correction would result in an estimated cost to the country of $670 billion.

According to the study authors, the EPA analysis credited car buyers with receiving only $0.23 out of every $1 of fuel savings. The researchers also stated that the EPA analysis made faulty assumptions about how long it takes for fuel savings to offset the upfront costs of purchasing vehicles.

Disagreement on economic impact

The study authors state that correcting errors in the EPA's analysis would decrease the estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, costing the country $670 billion. The Trump administration's analysis estimated that rescinding the greenhouse gas standards would save Americans $600 to $790 billion.

What the coverage left out

None of the right-rated digests mention the study authors' estimate that correcting the EPA's analysis would decrease the estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, costing the country $670 billion. The right-rated digest also does not include the specific figure that the EPA analysis credited car buyers with receiving only $0.23 out of every $1 of fuel savings.

Tags:#Environment#Politics#Economy#Science#TrumpAdministration

Coverage settled. We checked this 14 times and stopped on 2 Sept 2026, 05:15. The figures above are what it finished at.

How other outlets pictured it

Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.

Traffic moves along Interstate 76 ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend in Philadelphia, May 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
Associated Press NewsLeft

How each side covered it

Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.

Left

7 rated outlets

  • Six left-rated reports led on the finding that the Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emission rules. These reports stated that economists found errors in accounting for fuel savings, technology prices, and mileage. The Associated Press and The Record, which provided full reports, included statements from Antonio Bento, an author of the study, who said the economic case for the rollback falls apart even when setting aside environmental concerns. These reports also noted that correcting the EPA's errors would decrease the estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, leading to a national cost of $670 billion. The full reports also quoted Jason Schwartz of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, who said the rollback was based on fundamental flaws and was a bad deal for drivers and the environment. The Associated Press and The Record also mentioned that the EPA did not include the economic value of environmental benefits like reduced pollution.

Centre

16 rated outlets

  • All twelve centre‑rated outlets reported that a new study said the Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emission standards, citing errors in how fuel savings, technology costs and mileage were accounted for.
  • The Record’s own article added that the EPA had projected savings of $600 to $790 billion over coming decades, but the study calculated that correcting the identified errors would reverse the benefit, creating a cost of about $670 billion. It quoted study co‑author Antonio Bento and policy director Jason Schwartz.
  • None of the digests from the other eleven centre outlets mentioned the EPA’s $600 to $790 billion savings estimate or the study’s $670 billion cost figure, and they did not include any statements from the EPA or external experts. Only the full Record report provided those quantitative details and quotations.

Right

2 rated outlets

  • The single right-rated report, a digest from the Washington Times, stated that the Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emission standards, making errors in accounting for fuel savings, the price of technology, and mileage, according to a study by economists.

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed?
Of the 25 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 28% are rated left, 64% are rated centre, 8% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed left or right?
Neither side dominates it. Of the 25 rated outlets on this story, 28% are rated left, 64% are rated centre, 8% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
Is the coverage of Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed biased?
Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed is one event reported by 25 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
Which side is not reporting Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed?
When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
Which outlets covered Study: Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis flawed?
25 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
What did the study find about the Trump administration's emissions rollback analysis?
A study published in the journal Science found that the Trump administration's analysis used to justify scrapping vehicle emission rules was based on flawed logic. Economists identified errors in how the administration accounted for fuel savings, technology costs, and mileage.
What was the estimated economic impact of the administration's analysis?
The Trump administration estimated that rescinding the greenhouse gas standards would save Americans between $600 billion and $790 billion. However, the study authors found that correcting the errors would decrease this estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, resulting in an overall cost of $670 billion.
How did the study authors say the EPA accounted for fuel savings?
The study authors stated that the EPA analysis credited car buyers with receiving only $0.23 out of every $1 of fuel savings. They argued this wrongly left out billions of dollars in benefits that would have come from vehicle emissions standards.

Read it at the source

25 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.

Left

7

Centre

16
Show 8 more

Right

2

Not rated

0

No outlet in this group ran the story.

How did this read?

About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.

More in Politics

All Politics →
Trump policy cuts Medicaid for legal immigrants3 min readTrump policy cuts Medicaid for legal immigrantsRead storyScott Bessent responds to Elizabeth Warren letter requesting information on rise in the 10-year treasury yield3 min readBessent Mocks Warren Over Treasury Yields in Snarky LetterRead storyAnna Connors/The New York Times via AP, Pool3 min readNYC Mayor Mamdani's Italian Heritage Month Post Sparks Political ClashRead story

Elsewhere on the site

Commissioner Diaz says $13.5M could be saved by shifting law enforcement to the county and donating parksBusiness & Economy•2 min readOlder Americans Wealthiest as Youngest Families See Wealth Decline
Trump Emissions Rollback Analysis Flawed | MediaBias News