Lee Zeldin started off his tour of congressional hearings this week with a bang.
The EPA administrator appeared Monday before the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees his agency to defend a fiscal 2027 budget proposal that would slice the agency down to $4.2 billion — or more than half of its enacted funding.
The proposed cuts drew scrutiny from both sides of the aisle, and Zeldin was quick to spar on a variety of other fronts, including chemicals, climate change and the administration’s drive to deregulate.
Here are the main takeaways from Monday’s hearing:
Lawmakers united against cuts
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle once again demonstrated a lack of interest in coming anywhere close to the Trump administration’s requested budget cut for EPA.
While Democrats like subcommittee ranking member Chellie Pingree of Maine and Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut blasted the cuts, they were backed up by subcommittee Chair Mike Simpson (R-Idaho).
“You’re not going to see state and tribal grants cut by 83 percent,” Simpson said at the end of the hearing. “That was not Democrats fighting back. That was Republicans and Democrats.”
Most of the proposed cuts would come from ending almost all grants that help states pay for their environmental agencies and projects. Both Republicans and Democrats have been opposed to cutting those funds.
Simpson told a story about running against a candidate for reelection in 2014 and touting at a debate that he had cut EPA’s budget by 17 percent recently.
“The guy I was running against stood up and said, ’17 percent, hell, eliminate the EPA. We don’t need no damn EPA telling us what to do,’” Simpson recalled. “Standing ovation when he got up, and all of a sudden, I find myself defending the EPA.”
Simpson said the Cuyahoga River is no longer on fire and motorists in Los Angeles don’t need goggles to drive.
“The EPA is necessary, and they do some good things. Our goal is to get some sideboards on it and get it back to its original mission,” he said.
Tempers flare over climate
Zeldin used Monday’s hearing to tout his move to end EPA’s Clean Air Act endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, the linchpin decision behind the agency’s climate regulations.
DeLauro was not impressed, saying the Trump administration was making the problem worse, giving handouts to fossil fuel companies.
“The budget proposal reads like a climate change denier’s manifesto,” she said.
Zeldin responded by citing recent Supreme Court decisions that scaled back agencies’ rulemaking powers. Things soon grew heated.
“I don’t have to listen to this BS,” DeLauro said during cross talk with the administrator.
Zeldin replied, “BS? You think I made up these cases?”
Later on, the back and forth moved into pesticides.
“I don’t know what the question was. You’re holding up a cup and saying ‘glyphosate.’ Don’t drink it. Don’t inject it,” Zeldin said.
“Maybe you should try doing that,” the Democratic congresswoman said. “They’re really so blank arrogant when they’re making a mockery of what the agencies are all about.”
After the hearing, Zeldin swiped at the “uninformed Congressional Dem” on X, writing that her “self-implosion” was “quite remarkable to witness.”
Who is more MAHA?
Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup, was a frequent topic at Monday’s hearing.
Pingree noted she attended a rally earlier in the day outside the Supreme Court, which was hearing a case about whether federal law protects the company from liability for not warning the public about the chemical’s cancer risks. The lawmaker cited the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has pushed the Trump EPA to get tougher on chemical companies.
“Some of the MAHA advocates that I’ve met with, some of who may be here today, seem deeply concerned with this administration paying lip service to the movement while delivering win after win for the chemical industry,” Pingree said. “I share their concerns.”
Zeldin defended his work at the agency, noting EPA has worked with the movement on microplastics. Later, the administrator discussed the agency including an MAHA initiative in its budget request — a $30 million prize challenge to develop “cost-effective alternatives” for drying out crops before harvest rather than using pesticides.
“There are a number of topics that have been massively enhanced by the strong, passionate voices of MAHA activists,” Zeldin said. “They’re the ones who put it all over our radar.”
MATS math
Zeldin got into a contentious fight over the numerical impacts of repealing the Biden administration’s update to the mercury rule for coal-fired power plants.
Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) pressed Zeldin to explain why EPA didn’t monetize the public health costs of repealing the Biden-era standards. “You think doubling the amount of mercury pollution in the air is going to lead to zero health harms?” Harder asked.
“Where did you get doubling from?” Zeldin asked.
Harder didn’t clarify why he said mercury emissions would double because of the repeal. EPA’s regulatory analysis found that mercury emissions would be 23 percent higher in 2035 because of the repeal.
Zeldin, reading from a piece of paper, said cumulative emissions under the Biden rule would have been 33.2 tons through 2037, while after the repeal EPA expected it to be 39.3 tons over that period. That matches the 12,000 pounds, or 6 tons, of foregone reductions EPA estimated in its rollback.
Harder responded that he had seen estimates the rollback would lead to “as much as 1,500 additional pounds” of mercury emissions.
“Rip it up. Have your dog pee on it,” Zeldin replied. “It’s just not accurate.”
But according to EPA’s own estimates, the repeal will lead to additional annual emissions as high as 1,500 pounds compared to the 2024 rule’s baseline — 1,531 pounds in 2035, to be exact.
“You’re making up a number of 1,500 that’s not accurate,” Zeldin said after additional contentious back-and-forth with Harder. “I’m asking where your source is. My source is coming from career staffers. Yours is coming from some mysterious people in the community.”
In a statement, EPA’s press office blasted the Biden rule as unnecessary to protect public health and argued that the 1,500 pound differential is not an increase in emissions when compared to the underlying 2012 rule that remains in effect.
“The 2024 standards would not have seen these results until 2035, which were completely unnecessary as the standards were already safe as the Biden Administration admitted,” EPA said in a statement. “Bottom line you don’t have a story. The congressman got it wrong and Administrator Zeldin knows what he is talking about.”
Contact Kevin Bogardus on the encrypted messaging app Signal at KevinBogardus.89 and Alex Guillén at alexguillen.10.
