Choose Your Own Adventure: Facing Lee Zeldin in Congress

Good morning. You’re serving in Congress. You’ve got your coffee and your briefing book and have walked into the EPA budget hearing.

Administrator Lee Zeldin is testifying. If you’re a Democrat, you’re broadly critical of his agenda to deregulate and shrink the agency. If you’re a Republican, you mostly appreciate the administrator’s approach to EPA — but don’t want to see funding cuts impact your district back home.

Zeldin, who once sat on the other side of the dais as a Long Island lawmaker, is a wily witness. He has experience creating viral moments for social media and right-wing cable news where he looks good and you look bad — if you’re a Democrat, anyway.

If you’re a Republican and share Zeldin’s political leanings, you’re more likely to spend your time thanking him for regulatory rollbacks, prompting attacks on the Biden administration or, as has happened a couple of times recently, cede Zeldin your time so he can criticize Democratic lawmakers.

What’s your strategy? What are your goals? And in the five minutes of face time you’re allotted, can you outfox Zeldin — or will he steamroll over you? Can you leverage the exchange for your own viral NewsMax moment?

The EPA chief heads to the Hill again Wednesday, where he’ll visit the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Interior panel to discuss the proposed fiscal year 2027 EPA budget. We dug into his three Hill appearances last month to help you navigate your path.

Here’s POLITICO’s choose-your-own-adventure guide to questioning EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

First, are you a Democrat or a Republican?

1. If you’re a Democrat, go to A.
2. If you’re a Republican, go to P.

A. You’re a Democrat. First, you must decide what your goals are in questioning Zeldin.

1. If you want to urge him to act on a specific project, go to B.
2. If you’re looking to talk about a broader topic important to you, go to E.
3. If you want to have a fight with Zeldin about his actions or the Trump administration’s agenda, go to I.

B. Your goal is to urge Zeldin to act on a specific project.

Trying to get attention on a certain issue is a common goal of lawmakers when an administration official is testifying, whether you’re seeking agency action, project funding or something else. At the very least, bringing up a local issue can make headlines back home and potentially mollify constituents. But it has varying levels of success before Zeldin.

1. If you want to talk about a local water pollution problem, go to C.
2. If you want to question why Zeldin terminated a grant to one of your constituents, go to D.

C. You want to talk about a local water pollution problem.

Water pollution is still a policy area with significantly more bipartisan agreement than other environmental topics, particularly when narrowed to a specific problem. Your district includes a heavily polluted river. Zeldin recently secured a major win to clean up another nearby river. You compliment him on that achievement and ask he do the same for your river. Zeldin says top regional EPA officials will be visiting soon and that he anticipates quick action.

Outcome: You helped draw attention to your issue and got Zeldin’s cooperation.

Example: Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) on the New River, which flows from Mexico into Southern California. “We look forward to working with you on it,” Zeldin told Ruiz.

D. You want to question why Zeldin terminated a grant to one of your constituents.

Zeldin canceled a $20 million grant that was going to pay for a community health clinic and water infrastructure upgrades in a town you represent. Zeldin has canceled hundreds of grants and isn’t familiar with that particular one, offering instead to follow up. You ask why that particular grant was swept up in the administration’s anti-environmental justice effort. Zeldin doesn’t have any information on that specific grant and says he will follow up.

Outcome: Zeldin uses your question to complain about Democrats ambushing him with highly specific issues. He also follows up on X, writing that you “want to light [taxpayer] money on fire.”

Example: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) in 2025 on EPA terminating a grant for Thomasville, Georgia.

E. You’re looking to talk about a broader topic.

1. If you want to actually talk about EPA’s budget, go to F. 
2. If you show up armed with numbers, go to G.
3. If you want to steamroll Zeldin, go to H.
4. If you want to have a fight with Zeldin about his actions or the Trump administration’s agenda, go to I.

F. You actually want to talk about EPA’s budget.

Budget talk? At a budget hearing? It does actually happen sometimes, even if members are more likely to focus on policy issues. But sometimes, a line item jumps out and garners some questioning — such as Zeldin’s proposal of a $30 million “prize” for “cost-effective alternatives to pre-harvest desiccation use of pesticides.” Where is that money coming from, what guardrails are in place since it’s not a grant but rather a prize — and could it be going to Big Ag?

Outcome: Zeldin is conciliatory. “There are passionate advocates inside of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who care about how this money gets spent,” he said. “Let’s talk at the beginning of the process.”

Example: Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) last month dug into this $30 million prize, which EPA has already announced it will pursue. “Just as an appropriator, I have a responsibility ask — so what budget line does this $30 million come from?” she asked. (The answer: EPA’s science and technology budget.)

G. You show up armed with numbers.

Time to press Zeldin on one of his biggest regulatory rollbacks, undoing Biden’s mercury rule update for power plants. But right out of the gate when you press him on the pollution increase, Zeldin pushes back hard on the source of your claim. Suddenly, the numbers are flying — doubling, 2024 versus 2012, 70 percent, 2028, 2037, 33.2, 39.3, 15.5 to 18.3 percent, 1,500 pounds. What’s the baseline, what range are you talking about, what took effect when?

Outcome: Zeldin successfully cross-talked you about math until your time was up.

Example: Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) found himself in a contentious back-and-forth when he pressed Zeldin on increased pollution from the mercury rule rollback. “We’re about to do this because you’re going to regret it,” Zeldin said before digging in.

H. You want to steamroll Zeldin.

Sometimes you just want to say your piece and move on, particularly when you know Zeldin won’t cooperate. So you use your five minutes of questioning to expound on the energy cost increases due to the Iran war, EPA’s regulatory rollbacks, how Zeldin’s position on the endangerment finding changed from when he was in Congress to when he became EPA administrator and finally wrap it around to the health impacts of Zeldin’s agenda.

Outcome: You kept Zeldin from saying much at all. Whether that counts as quality oversight is another matter.

Example: Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) at last month’s Environment and Public Works hearing. “Filibustering himself,” Zeldin was left to quip before the committee moved on.

I. You want to have a fight with Zeldin about his actions or the Trump administration’s agenda.

This is a popular choice for Democrats looking to land anti-Trump broadsides, but it’s a double-edged sword. Zeldin made his bones in Trump World virulently defending the president in public forums, and he and other Cabinet members are eager to slam Democrats to end up on the nightly news. What’s your plan to get mad without getting got?

1. If you’re looking to drive a wedge between Zeldin and Trump, go to J.
2. If you want to chastise Zeldin broadly, go to M.
3. If you accuse Zeldin of being out of touch, go to N.
4. If you’re fixin’ for a fight, go to O.

J. You’re looking to drive a wedge between Zeldin and Trump.

One of the only real gaps of potential daylight between the two is the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which isn’t thrilled with some of the deregulatory choices Zeldin has made in the pesticide, water and air spaces. Pressing him to explain himself could score points with the MAHA crowd.

1. If you want to list all of the things MAHA is unhappy with, go to K.
2. If you want to connect Zeldin to something MAHA is unhappy about, go to L.

K. You want to list all of the things MAHA is unhappy with.

This could remind those activists of the many issues they have with Zeldin or the Trump administration writ large. And there’s a number of things to choose from: yanking federal standards for certain “forever chemicals,” boosting glyphosate production, installing chemical industry officials atop the chemicals office. Zeldin complains about the complexity of your question, then pivots to his list of 500 accomplishments from the administration’s first year. When you push back, Zeldin highlights his work to address microplastics, another MAHA topic.

Outcome: Zeldin accuses you of only saying these things because of the upcoming midterm elections and your desire to get the gavel.

Example: Pingree pushed MAHA criticisms of Zeldin, forcing him to defend his actions.

L. You want to tie Zeldin to something MAHA is unhappy about.

You’re ready to go after Zeldin on a surprisingly hot topic, the pesticide glyphosate, which is facing questions about liability related to cancer in both the Supreme Court and Congress. It doesn’t hurt that you’re armed with receipts — aka internal EPA documents you obtained through FOIA — and a well-prepared script of questions.

Outcome: You share emails describing how Bayer planned to thank Zeldin for changing EPA’s website. Zeldin and EPA don’t clarify what that’s about, but you connect some dots between the liability concerns and EPA’s removal of support for a Roundup label that contains a cancer warning. It’s far from a body blow, but you’ve at least landed a hit on Zeldin.

Example: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used her trademark “Perry Mason”-style questioning to tease out Zeldin’s connections with Bayer over glyphosate. As AOC has proved before, it pays to have receipts.

M. You want to chastise Zeldin broadly.

This is a popular choice, and one most Democrats take at one point or another. After all, environmental issues are highly partisan, and the base loves a scrapper. But the risk of attacking Zeldin is that he often zigs when you expect him to zag. When you start complaining about repealing climate regulations, he follows up by asking about Supreme Court precedent and the language of the Clean Air Act. When you’re not immediately familiar, he pivots and blasts you with a bunch of enforcement numbers, talking over or past you when you try to interrupt.

Outcome: Ultimately, both sides are confused enough that somehow you suggest Zeldin drink a cup of pesticide, a moment he will take to Fox News at least twice in subsequent days to brag about bamboozling a Democrat.

Example: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) had a caustic and confusing interaction with Zeldin at an appropriations hearing last month.

N. You accuse Zeldin of being out of touch.

You don’t like that Republicans passed a tax cut bill you feel favors the wealthy or that now Zeldin is proposing halving the EPA budget. You tell Zeldin that Americans aren’t grateful to see their health care cut or the national debt raised. Zeldin in turn lobs the same accusation back, saying he’s met Americans all over the country who support the GOP tax bill.

Outcome: It’s a bit of stalemate, with both sides arguing the other needs to touch grass.

Example: Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and Zeldin each accused the other of being out of touch with Americans over Trump’s tax cuts.

O. You’re fixin’ for a fight.

This is also popular to varying degrees. There are a few ways this can go. You can turn up the heat and then back down a bit. You can (have a staffer) prepare a script that asks yes-or-no questions and then steamroll Zeldin when he doesn’t use those exact words. Or you can just plain old fly off the handle, hardening your tone and increasing your volume until the chair has to step in while you shout about Kristi Noem’s $220 million ad campaign at Zeldin, who has managed to remain relatively composed.

Outcome: You’ve supplied Zeldin with another clip for Fox News and social media while eliciting no substantive conversation.

Example: Rep. Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) had one of the most belligerent interactions with Zeldin of this budget cycle.

P. You’re a Republican.

First, you must decide what your goals are in questioning Zeldin. Most Republican lawmakers are tossing Zeldin softballs, as Democrats do under Democratic administrations. But there are still some pointed questions to be had.

1. If you want to push back on his proposed massive budget cuts, go to Q.

2. If you want to press him for immediate regulatory relief, go to R.

3. If you want to give Zeldin your questioning time so he can hit back at Democrats, go to S.

Q. You want to push back on his proposed massive budget cuts.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a Republican who doesn’t support Zeldin’s deregulatory work. But that’s not going to translate into completely gutting EPA’s budget. For starters, appropriators know that fiery statements are well and good, but the Senate filibuster means they need to get enough Democrats on board to pass a funding bill. But lawmakers from both sides of the aisle generally aren’t eager to see Zeldin push to cut almost all of the billions of dollars that flow through EPA to their states to pay for environmental work. Choking off those funds would leave most states holding the bag on issues like drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

Outcome: Congress controls the purse strings, so you can reject most of these cuts easily enough. The White House budget is more about messaging than a serious governing document anyway.

Example: “We likely cannot accept the proposed steep cuts to the state and tribal assistance grants,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the House’s top EPA appropriator, told Zeldin last month. The Senate’s top EPA appropriator, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had even stronger words for Zeldin last year, and may again on Wednesday.

R. You want to press him for immediate regulatory relief.

Your hearing is just just over a week away from a key implementation deadline under the Biden-era methane rule, which Zeldin is working to rewrite but is still in place. He assures you guidance will be out soon that will prevent shutting in 40,000 barrels of oil a day in your state.

Outcome: Zeldin assures you help is on the way, and it arrives as promised before the deadline.

Example: Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) got results at last month’s Energy and Commerce hearing.

S. You want to give Zeldin your questioning time so he can hit back at Democrats.

In contentious exchanges between lawmakers and hostile witnesses, one common tactic is not giving the witness much time to answer your questions, preventing them from changing the narrative. That includes at Zeldin’s congressional hearings. But there’s nothing stopping the next Republican member from giving part of their five minutes to Zeldin to say his peace, offering him an opportunity to hit back without interruption.

Outcome: When lawmakers want to “grandstand” but then “actually meet the hard facts, the reality, and they hear the numbers, they want to cut you off and make sure that you stop reading off the numbers that disprove their false claim,” Zeldin said.

Example: Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) hammered Zeldin on enforcement issues until his time ran out. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) suggested the next Republican questioner could give Zeldin some time to respond. “How did you know I was going to do precisely that?” asked Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), who let Zeldin speak before moving on to press him to issue biofuel blending requirements by the statutory deadline.