The following is the transcript of an interview with EPA administrator Lee Zeldin that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on April 20, 2025.
WEIJIA JIANG: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We turn now to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. Administrator Zeldin, thank you so much for spending some of your morning with us. I want to start with what your office called the most momentous day in the history of the EPA, and that is when the EPA announced 31 deregulatory actions just last month. That’s a long list, but some of the things that stood out are, you’re reconsidering regulations on power plants, on mercury and air Toxic Standards that target coal-fired power plants and on wastewater regulations for the development of oil and gas. The mission statement of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. Can you assure the American public that all this deregulation is not going to have an adverse impact on people and the environment?
EPA ADMINISTRATOR LEE ZELDIN: Absolutely, we have to both protect the environment and grow the economy. It’s what the American people demanding- demanding of us. They want us to make sure that we are applying common sense. Over the course of the last couple years of the Biden administration, there were a lot of regulations that were brought over the finish line that were targeting entire industries. And when the American public went to vote last November, they were talking about economic concerns, about struggling to make ends meet. That includes the cost of being able to heat their home. The choice of whether or not to be able to heat their home or fill up their fridge with groceries or afford prescription medication. The ability to get jobs. What we’ve also heard are the costs of compliance, which amount into the trillions and what that does to the American economy as well. So going into this process, I don’t prejudge outcomes- not allowed to under the Administrative Procedures Act. We will have a process that includes public comment, and we would encourage the public to weigh in when they have that opportunity.
WEIJIA JIANG: Last month, you also announced that your agency is proposing changing the Waters of the U.S., and of course, those are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and historically set standards that the EPA can address pollutants in our drinking water, including forever chemicals known as PFAS. I bring that up because during your time as a congressman, you advocated for legislation to address those dangerous PFAS in our water. Can you talk about the specifics of what waters could be now excluded from EPA regulation and why?
LEE ZELDIN: Okay, so the first thing on the “Waters of the U.S.”, the United States Supreme Court, in a decision called Sackett, put out prescriptive language saying what should be considered a water of the U.S., and what we’re going to do is get the federal regulation in line with the Supreme Court decision that came out right now. Across the country, the map of 50 states are operating under different definitions of what is a water of the US. And there are farmers and ranchers and other landowners that and they don’t know whether or not water on their land is a water of the US. They have to go hire an attorney or someone else to tell them whether or not they have waters on their property. So on that front, we want a simple definition for the entire country, so that people understand whether or not there’s a water of the U.S. on their property. It’s also important to some governments that weighed in as well, with regards to PFAS, very important issue, and we have to ensure that we are tackling it. I was a member of the PFAS task force when I was a member of Congress. I represent in the district with a bunch of PFAS issues. I’ve heard some feedback from members of Congress as it relates to PFAS. One example is that there are compliance states coming up where there are local water municipalities that are saying that they’re going to have trouble meeting those particular deadlines, and they’re looking for assistance. So I’ve heard that from members of Congress. Now, that feedback from members of Congress, it’s important, something else they talk about is called passive receivers. So a local water municipality would have to pay for the PFAS cleanup, and then they pass it off to their consumer. And that is against the principle of polluter pays. Instead of making Americans pay to clean up PFAS from their own drinking water, the responsible party should be paying, and in many cases, the responsible party is the federal government.
WEIJIA JIANG: I want to turn to also the $20 billion worth of clean energy grants that you terminated because just last week, a federal judge ruled that the government must unfreeze that money because the administration did not offer sufficient evidence for waste, fraud and abuse. Now the ruling has been stayed while the appellate court looks into the case further. But can you talk about what this judge has says is a lack of evidence. Because there are several ongoing investigations to look for that waste, fraud and abuse, but they haven’t concluded. So why did you freeze the money before those investigations wrapped?
LEE ZELDIN: And I’m glad you pointed out that the circuit court then stopped what the district court was saying. So, self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, lack of sufficient EPA oversight, these were all concerns that we had. First were- had the alarm raised when a Biden EPA political appointee in December was on video saying that they were tossing gold bars off the Titanic, rushing to get billions of dollars out the door before Inauguration Day. And also said, with an eye towards getting themselves jobs at recipient NGOs. So for example, as it relates to unqualified recipients, there was one recipient NGO that only received $100 in 2023, they got $2 billion in 2024. They also have in their grant agreement requirement to complete a training in 90 days called “how to develop a budget.” They were amending the account control agreements days before the inauguration, reducing EPA oversight. There’s all sorts of questions that you can ask me as relates to where this money goes, because the $20 billion goes through eight pass through entities, EPA isn’t even a party to the account control agreements once it goes to the other entities, including many other pass throughs. If you ask me, what happens to that money, basic questions, $20 billion, I couldn’t even provide answers to you. Now, I owe it to you, to the American public, to Congress, to be able to tell them where that money goes. The idea that we’re going to play along with tossing gold bars off the Titanic is something that I will not go along with. I have a zero tolerance for any waste and abuse. It is my duty to ensure that I’m an exceptional steward of tax dollars. It is my responsibility to make- make sure we have more oversight of those funds.
WEIJIA JIANG: You bring up the gold bars because of that Project Veritas video where one former EPA advisor used that phrase, but you’re not banking all of these cuts based on that one assertion, are you?
LEE ZELDIN: So it’s interesting because, you know, you asked me, I brought up one- one exact- piece of example as it relates to that video. I talk about unqualified recipients. I talk about an NGO that’s brand new that received $100 and they get 2 billion. I talk about how their grant agreement tells them that they have 90 days to complete training called “How to develop a budget.” I talk about how they’re amending account control agreements just days before the election–
WEIJIA JIANG: And the judge says that’s not sufficient evidence.
LEE ZELDIN: Oh no, it’s actually worse than that. In the judge’s opinion, she doesn’t even reference it. She ignores it. Now this is one of the problems with district court judges across this entire country. They were not elected President of the United States. It is important for us to be able to fulfill our constitutional duties, to follow our statutory obligations, and it is important to be a responsible steward of tax dollars. But what shouldn’t happen is ignore all of the evidence and then just say, there is no evidence. The 39-page opinion of the district court doesn’t even reference any of that. And if we had more time and you said, hey Lee, why don’t you provide for me 15 more examples of evidence right now, and it’s up to you. I don’t know how much time you have. But I could just keep going of all the evidence and talk about self dealing, conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients and reduced oversight.
WEIJIA JIANG: Administrator, I will get that from your team, and I appreciate it. We will also be watching that case as it unfolds closely. Thank you so much, and Happy Easter to you.
LEE ZELDIN: Thank you.
WEIJIA JIANG: We’ll be right back.