Mar 09 2025 3 mins
In recent days, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin has been at the forefront of several significant developments and decisions that reflect the new administration's policy priorities.
Administrator Zeldin, in collaboration with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has continued a series of budget cuts aimed at reducing what is deemed as wasteful federal spending. On March 4, 2025, Zeldin announced the cancellation of 21 additional grants, resulting in total immediate taxpayer savings of $116,449,761. This move is part of the third round of EPA cuts, bringing the total taxpayer dollars saved to more than $287 million since Zeldin took office just 31 days prior. These cancellations include grants for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice programs, aligning with the administration's commitment to reviving the economy and promoting American energy dominance[1].
In addition to these financial measures, the EPA is also undertaking a significant review of its regulatory policies. The agency has moved to reassess the requirements of the Risk Management Program (RMP) under the Clean Air Act, following the new administration's policy priorities. The EPA intends to initiate a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process to reconsider the current RMP requirements, with the goal of publishing a final rule by late 2026. This decision is part of a broader effort to align EPA regulations with the new administration's goals, and it has led to a request for the court to hold related cases in abeyance to allow time for this rulemaking process[2].
Furthermore, the EPA's authority has been subject to judicial scrutiny. On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in *City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency*, limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to impose "end-result" requirements in discharge permits. The Court held that the CWA does not authorize the EPA to set generalized requirements that delegate responsibility to permittees to determine how to meet water quality standards without specifying concrete steps. This ruling will require the EPA and state regulators to include more specific conditions in wastewater discharge permits, potentially adding delays and expenses to the permitting process[3].
Administrator Zeldin has also been involved in addressing financial mismanagement issues inherited from the previous administration. The EPA has formally referred the matter of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to the Inspector General for investigation due to concerns over financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures. The GGRF, which involves $20 billion in taxpayer dollars, was managed in a way that bypassed EPA oversight, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability. The investigation includes allegations of improper grants to unqualified recipients and conflicts of interest among former GGRF directors[5].
These actions and decisions underscore the EPA's current focus on fiscal accountability, regulatory realignment, and adherence to judicial interpretations, all of which are aligned with the new administration's policy priorities.
Administrator Zeldin, in collaboration with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has continued a series of budget cuts aimed at reducing what is deemed as wasteful federal spending. On March 4, 2025, Zeldin announced the cancellation of 21 additional grants, resulting in total immediate taxpayer savings of $116,449,761. This move is part of the third round of EPA cuts, bringing the total taxpayer dollars saved to more than $287 million since Zeldin took office just 31 days prior. These cancellations include grants for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice programs, aligning with the administration's commitment to reviving the economy and promoting American energy dominance[1].
In addition to these financial measures, the EPA is also undertaking a significant review of its regulatory policies. The agency has moved to reassess the requirements of the Risk Management Program (RMP) under the Clean Air Act, following the new administration's policy priorities. The EPA intends to initiate a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process to reconsider the current RMP requirements, with the goal of publishing a final rule by late 2026. This decision is part of a broader effort to align EPA regulations with the new administration's goals, and it has led to a request for the court to hold related cases in abeyance to allow time for this rulemaking process[2].
Furthermore, the EPA's authority has been subject to judicial scrutiny. On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in *City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency*, limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to impose "end-result" requirements in discharge permits. The Court held that the CWA does not authorize the EPA to set generalized requirements that delegate responsibility to permittees to determine how to meet water quality standards without specifying concrete steps. This ruling will require the EPA and state regulators to include more specific conditions in wastewater discharge permits, potentially adding delays and expenses to the permitting process[3].
Administrator Zeldin has also been involved in addressing financial mismanagement issues inherited from the previous administration. The EPA has formally referred the matter of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to the Inspector General for investigation due to concerns over financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures. The GGRF, which involves $20 billion in taxpayer dollars, was managed in a way that bypassed EPA oversight, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability. The investigation includes allegations of improper grants to unqualified recipients and conflicts of interest among former GGRF directors[5].
These actions and decisions underscore the EPA's current focus on fiscal accountability, regulatory realignment, and adherence to judicial interpretations, all of which are aligned with the new administration's policy priorities.