In Washington, concern has arisen as three former leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criticized proposed rollbacks by current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, warning that these changes could jeopardize millions of American lives and undermine the agency’s mission to protect both human health and the environment. On Wednesday, Zeldin announced plans to reverse 31 major environmental regulations, affecting areas from air and water quality to climate change policy.
Gina McCarthy, a former EPA Administrator, labeled Zeldin’s announcement as possibly the worst day in EPA history. Her dismay was shared by William K. Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush, and Christine Todd Whitman, who led under President George W. Bush, both of whom expressed grave concerns about Zeldin’s comprehensive agenda.
Reilly condemned the proposed rollbacks as catastrophic, denouncing them as a departure from the EPA’s historical commitment to environmental protection. Whitman echoed these sentiments, highlighting the threat to clean air and water. Whitman’s comments also addressed Zeldin’s intent to reconsider the EPA’s 2009 scientific assertion that greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health, a cornerstone for most U.S. climate regulations.
Environmental groups and scientists assert that this endangerment finding is central to U.S. environmental law, suggesting that attempts to overturn it would likely be ineffective. Whitman and colleagues were taken aback by the administration’s willingness to challenge this finding and a suite of other well-established rules, which they warn could have severe repercussions for the environment, public health, and the economy.
McCarthy, who served under President Obama, criticized the current EPA for siding with fossil fuel interests over the agency’s environmental mission. She, alongside other former administrators, argued that strong regulations historically have led to both economic growth and environmental improvement.
EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou defended the administration, citing President Trump’s first-term achievements in balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship. However, Trump’s past actions have included more than 100 environmental rollbacks and a reduction in climate program funding.
Reilly expressed fears that Zeldin, guided by influences like Elon Musk’s government-reduction agenda, might steer the country back to a time when industry pollution faced limited oversight. He referenced historical events like the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire, which played a significant role in spurring the creation of the EPA.
In a recent op-ed, these former administrators warned of the potential ecological and public health damages from the Trump administration’s policy directions, citing funding freezes and workforce reductions as damaging to national environmental efforts.
Regulatory change, according to McCarthy, demands significant effort and thus should not be undertaken lightly. Conversely, Zeldin and the Trump administration assert the rule changes will foster economic growth, citing intended reductions in regulatory expenses and perceived benefits to American households and businesses.
The debate centers around rewriting regulations on air pollution from power plants, emissions from vehicles, and mercury pollution, among others. Biden’s administration, focused on emissions reductions and environmental protection, had previously enacted many of these rules. In contrast, Zeldin’s rollbacks aim to enhance cost-efficiency while allegedly reducing living costs.
Environmental advocates have pledged to oppose the changes, warning they could result in the most significant pollution increases in decades in the United States.
