The following is the transcription of an interview with the EPA administrator Lee Zeldin that A. Ace the Nation Margaret Brennan “on April 20, 2025.
Weijia Jiang: Welcome again to face the nation. Now we move on to the Lee Zeldin Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin administrator, thank you very much for spending something about your morning with us. I want to start with what his office called the most transcendental day in the history of the EPA, and that is when the EPA announced 31 deregulator actions last month. That is a long list, but some of the things that stood out are that it is reconsidering the regulations on the power plants, on the toxic standards of mercury and air that are directed to the electric power plants and the wastewater regulations for the development of oil and gas. The EPA mission statement is to protect human health and the environment. Can you assure the American public that all this deregulation will not have an announcement about people and the environment?
EPA LEE ZELDIN ADMINISTRATOR: Absolutely, we have to protect both the environment and grow the economy. It is what the American people demand by demanding or us. They want us to make sure we are applying common sense. Around the course of the last two years of the Biden Administration, there were many regulations that were presented on the finish line that were pointing to entire industries. And when the American public went to vote last November, they were talking about economic groups, of fighting to reach the end of the month. That includes the cost of being able to heat your home. The choice of whether or not may heating your home or filling your refrigerator with groceries or paying prescription medications. The ability to get a job. What we have also heard are compliance costs, which are equivalent to billions and what also does to the US economy. Then, upon entering this process, I do not prejudge the results, they are not allowed under the Law of Administrative Procedures. We will have a process that includes public comments, and we would encourage the public to evaluate when they have that opportunity.
Weijia Jiang: The last months also announced that your agency is proposing to change the waters of the United States and, of course, are subject to regulation under the clean and historically water law establishes standards that the EPA can address the Waterf contaminals. I mention it because the time of his time as a congressman, he advocated the legislation to address those dangerous PFA in our water. Can you talk about the details of which waters could now be excluded from the regulation of the EPA and why?
Lee Zeldin: Well, then the first thing in the “waters of the United States”, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision called Sackett, presented a prescriptive language saying what should be considered a water from the United States, and what we are moving forward in the decision of Doucte Temote that came out at this time. Throughout the country, the Map of 50 states is operating under different definitions of what is a water from the United States. And there are farmers and ranchers and other owners who and do not know whether or not the water is a water from the United States. They have to hire a lawyer or something else to tell them whether or not they have waters on their property. So, on that front, we want a simple definition for the whole country, so that people understand whether or not there is a water from the United States on their property. It is also important for some governments that also intervened, with respect to the PFA, a very important problem, and we have to make sure we are addressing it. I was a member of the PFAS task force when I was a member of Congress. I represent the district with a lot of PFA problems. I have heard some comments from the members of the Congress as he addresses the PFA. An example is that there are states of compliance that arise where there are local water municipalities that say they will have trouble meeting these particular deadlines, and are looking for help. So I have heard that members of Congress. Now, that the comments of the members of the Congress, it is important, something more than they speak is called passive receptors. Then, a local water municipality would have to pay the cleaning of PFAS and then pass it to its consumer. And that is against the principle of polluting payments. Instead of making Americans pay to clean the PFA of their own drinking water, the responsible part should pay, and in many cases, the responsible part is the federal government.
Weijia Jiang: I also want to resort to clean energy subsidies of $ 20 billion that ended because last week, a federal judge ruled that the Government must defrost that money because the administration did with regard to the administration. Now the ruling has remained while the Court of Appeals further analyzes the case. But can you talk about what this judge says it is a lack of evidence? Because there are several investigations on information to seek that waste, fraud and abuse, but accumulate in the conclusion. So why did you froze the money before they finished those investigations?
Lee Zeldin: And I am slippery, you pointed out that the Circuit Court after it stopped what the District Court said. Therefore, self -conscious and conflicts of interest, unqualified receptors, the lack of sufficient supervision of the EPA, all these concerns we had. First it was the alarm raised when a designated politician from the EPA Biden in December was in a video that said they threw Golden Bars from Titanic, hurrying to obtain billions of dollars before the day of the inauguration. And he also said, with the eye of getting jobs in receiving NGOs. So, for example, with regard to unqualified recipients, there was an NGO of receptors that only received $ 100 in 2023, obtained $ 2 billion in 2024. They also have in their subsidy agreement “to complete training”. They amended the account control agreements days before the inauguration, reducing the supervision of the EPA. There are all kinds of questions that can ask me where this money is going, because the $ 20 billion goes through eight entities of passes through the EPA, it is not even a part to the control of the account of many entities. If you ask me, what happens to that money, basic questions, $ 20 billion, could not even provide answers. Now, I owe it, to the American public, to Congress, to be able to tell them where that money is going. The idea that we are going to play along with launching Titanic’s gold bars is something I am not going to go. I have a zero tolerance for any waste and abuse. It is my duty to ensure that I am an exceptional administrator or tax dollars. It is my responsibility to ensure that we have more supervision of these funds.
Weijia Jiang: You take the gold bars because the Veritas project video where a former EPA advisor used that phrase, but you are not depositing all these cuts based on that statement, right?
Lee Rarin: Then it is interesting because, you know, you asked me, I mentioned an exact piece in which it is related to that video. I speak of unqualified recipients. I speak of an NGO that is new that receiver $ 100 and obtains 2 billion. I talk about how their subsidy agreement tells them that they have 90 days to complete the training called “how to develop a budget.” I talk about how the account control agreements are amending a few days before the elections.
Weijia Jiang: And the judge says that is not enough evidence.
Lee Rarin: Oh no, it’s really worse than that. In the judge’s opinion, she does not reference. She ignores it. Now, this is one of the problems with the judges of the district courts throughout this country. They were not elected president of the United States. It is important for us to be able to fulfill our constitutional duties, follow our legal brigations, and it is important to be an response administrator or tax dollars. But what should not happen is to ignore all the evidence and then say that there is no evidence. The opinion of 39 pages of the District Court does not even refer to any of that. And if we had more time and you said, Hi Lee, why don’t you provide me 15 more examples of evidence at this time, and it depends on you? I don’t know how long you have. But I could continue with all the evidence and talk about self -founded trade, conflicts of interest, unqualified receptors and supervision reduction.
Weijia Jiang: Administrator, I will get it from your team and appreciate it. We will also see that case as it develops closely. Thank you very much and happy Easter.
Read raer: Thank you.
Weijia Jiang: We’ll return.
