The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed the rescission of overly burdensome and costly rules that require companies to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports. The Commission’s proposal focuses on returning the agency to its core mandate – in line with its legal authority – and restoring a materiality-focused approach to securities regulation.

“SEC disclosure obligations should comply with the Commission’s statutory authority, be guided by materiality as the North Star, avoid the practical effect of dictating corporate behavior, and be imposed only when the expected benefits justify the likely costs and burdens,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins in a statement.

The Commission in March 2024 approved amendments to its rules under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to mandate highly specific and granular disclosure from virtually all public companies about climate-related matters such as greenhouse gas emissions, management of climate-related risks, and the financial statement effects of severe weather events.

On April 4, 2024, the Commission stayed the climate disclosure rules pending completion of consolidated litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On March 27, 2025, the Commission voted to end its defense of the final rules. On Sept. 12, 2025, the Eighth Circuit issued an order holding the consolidated petitions for review in abeyance until such time as the Commission reconsiders the challenged rules by notice-and-comment rulemaking or renews its defense of the climate disclosure rules.

The Commission is now proposing to rescind the climate disclosure rules in their entirety because they exceed the scope of the agency’s statutory authority. Even if it had authority to adopt such final rules, the Commission believes there are independent, compelling policy reasons to rescind them entirely:

• They are unnecessary and inconsistent with a registrant-specific, materiality-based approach to disclosure that best serves the interests of registrants and investors.
• They stray well beyond the policy concerns of the federal securities laws.
• They impose substantial costs on public companies and their shareholders that are not justified by the informational benefits they may provide to some investors.
• They are at odds with the Commission’s policy objectives of facilitating capital formation and promoting public company status.

The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following the publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Source: SEC