Lee Zeldin speaks during his Senate confirmation hearing on January 16, 2025, in Washington D.C (Credit: Chen Mengtong/China News Service/Alamy Live News).

To “restore U.S. energy dominance.” To “unleash economic prosperity” by “roll[ing] back regulations.” These will be some of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) main goals over the next four years, according to its new administrator, Lee Zeldin. Traditionally, the mission of the EPA has been to protect human health and the environment, but President Donald Trump has shown little interest in either of those issues, and his pick for department head has proved that his own interest is only to please the boss. As with many of the president’s nominees, loyalty got Zeldin the job: his résumé boasts no experience at any other environmental agency, and his voting record on environmental issues from his time as a New York representative earned an abysmal 14 percent from the League of Conservation Voters. But he did, crucially, vote against certifying the 2020 election results. 

During his confirmation hearing on January 16, Zeldin attempted to dodge questions about climate change and forcefully denied that the hundreds of thousands of dollars he’s received from dark-money and pro-Trump advocacy groups (including $25,000 to write an op-ed complaining about environmental, social, and governance investing) would influence his actions as EPA administrator. When pressed, he admitted that climate change is real. But his refusal to acknowledge the agency’s role in addressing the crisis evinces a more insidious form of denialism. Like many senators at the hearing, Zeldin pushed a false dichotomy pitting the environment against the economy. Even an ostensibly neutral statement like “we must ensure that we are protecting the environment while also protecting the economy” suggests that he weighs one against the other, especially given Republicans’ eagerness to drill and deregulate and their complaints that “radical environmentalism” guided the Biden administration. That zero-sum view of the environment and the economy is short-sighted and overly simplistic—polluted air and water cause expensive health problems; regulation can spur, not merely stifle, innovation; backtracking on clean-energy investments damages growing industries; and the effects of sea-level rise and climate-change-exacerbated natural disasters have already driven up insurance prices across the country. But Zeldin’s statement is also a misunderstanding of the EPA’s mandate, which does not include protecting the economy at all.

Zeldin’s statement is a misunderstanding of the EPA’s mandate, which does not include protecting the economy at all.

Whether Zeldin personally understands the threat of climate change is not the only concern. As he pointed out several times, his capacity as head of the agency is limited by the budget Congress appropriates for him, and his obligations under the law are guided by court decisions. Even the most climate-conscious and experienced administrator could not pursue a robust agenda without sufficient congressional funds. Much of the EPA’s money is distributed to the states, which decide for themselves what to spend it on, regardless of the administrator’s preferences. With Republicans in control of Congress and the presidency—and with the ominous initiatives of Project 2025 and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency already underway—it’s easy to imagine steep budget cuts for the EPA. And the decisions of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, including SackettLoper Bright, and West Virginia—all of which limit the EPA’s regulatory power—will damage the agency’s capabilities beyond this administration. 

Insofar as the priorities of the administrator do matter, Zeldin’s are nonsensical. Prosperity isn’t achieved by “unleashing” businesses from their responsibility to follow clean-air and -water standards. More fracking and drilling won’t protect human health or the environment, and the United States is already the world’s largest energy producer by far. The depressing irony is that the Trump administration’s determination to cut regulations and protect fossil fuels will not only undermine the EPA’s mission. It will also wreak greater havoc on the economy as the effects of climate change become ever more severe. 

Note: This article has been updated to reflect Zeldin’s confirmation on January 29, 2025. 

Isabella Simon is the managing editor at Commonweal.

Also by this author
Published in the February 2025 issue: View Contents

Most Recent

© 2025 Commonweal Magazine. All rights reserved. Design by Point Five. Site by Deck Fifty.