On May 29, 2026, the SEC formally proposed to rescind its 2024 climate disclosure rules in full. The Commission adopted those rules on March 6, 2024, and they would have reached nearly every public company, mandating detailed disclosure about greenhouse gas emissions, the management of climate-related risks, and the financial statement effects of severe weather events. But the rules never took effect. Soon after the SEC adopted them, legal challenges arose that have put them on hold ever since.
This proposal is the latest turn in a long legal fight. Shortly after the SEC’s adoption of the rules, various parties petitioned for judicial review in multiple federal courts of appeals, and those petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The key events since then have been:
- The SEC stayed the rules on April 4, 2024.
- The Commission voted to end its defense of the rules on March 27, 2025.
- On September 12, 2025, the court held the case in abeyance until the SEC either reconsiders the rules through notice-and-comment rulemaking or renews its defense.
This proposal begins that reconsideration.
Link to What Happens Next What Happens Next
The SEC’s proposing release, summarized in its fact sheet, is open for public comment through August 3, 2026, after which the SEC staff would review comments and the SEC would decide whether, when, and in what form to act.
Although the release asks whether the SEC should consider alternatives to full rescission, such as narrower rules for a smaller set of companies, all signs point to full repeal: the Commission proposes complete rescission, has withdrawn its defense, and all three sitting Commissioners support the proposal. However, nothing is final until the comment period closes and the SEC acts to adopt a final rule (or full repeal).
Link to What Companies Should Do Now What Companies Should Do Now
SEC Disclosures
Because the rules were stayed, no company has ever had to comply. Many companies nonetheless developed compliance plans in case the rules survived, which was the prudent course given the uncertainty.
The practical message is that companies should continue with their current disclosure practices. The release explains that existing disclosure requirements are designed to elicit information about climate-related matters when those matters are material to a particular company, in a manner tailored to the company’s own circumstances. The release also points to the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, noting that they protect investors against materially misleading or incomplete disclosures about climate-related matters. It draws on the SEC’s 2010 climate guidance, which remains in effect, and the Regulation S-K items that guidance identified as potentially calling for climate-related disclosure when material:
- Description of business
- Legal proceedings
- Risk factors
- Management’s discussion and analysis
The guidance also reminds companies to consider financial statement implications under applicable accounting standards, such as those governing contingencies and risks and uncertainties.
The proposal to rescind also asks for comment on whether the SEC should update the 2010 guidance. Any revision would reshape how companies apply these existing obligations, and it confirms that the 2010 guidance, rather than the 2024 rules, remains the operative baseline for climate disclosure under the SEC’s disclosure regime.
California Climate Rules, CSRD and Others
Regardless of what the SEC ultimately does with its climate disclosure rules, other climate disclosure mandates remain in effect, including California’s emissions reporting laws, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards.
Further down the line, CSRD implementation for non-EU businesses has been delayed to 2029 (reporting on 2028) and IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards are still being adopted by various jurisdictions around the world. As of earlier this year, more than 25 jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico have adopted IFRS S1 and/or S2 in some form. Many other jurisdictions are actively in the process of adopting IFRS S1 and/or S2, such as China, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
Companies that do business in California or in any of these other jurisdictions should review the applicable requirements and scoping parameters to confirm whether they may be in-scope for any of these reporting regimes (and if so, the relevant dates and requirements for compliance). In California in particular, both the reporting deadline and certain underlying requirements remain subject to CARB’s pending rulemaking, so companies should monitor that process as it moves through the comment period.