Legislative Update: Senate Panel Approves Zeldin to Lead Trump’s EPA After Confirmation Hearing

Senate Panel Approves Zeldin to Lead Trump’s EPA After Confirmation Hearing

On January 23, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-8 to approve Lee Zeldin’s nomination as EPA administrator. Senator Mark Kelly (D—AZ) was the lone Democrat to vote yes.

NOTE: The 1/23/25 newsletter email erroneously indicated Administrator Zeldin’s nomination was passed out of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee on a party-line vote. It was not. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) joined the Republicans in supporting the nomination. We apologize for any confusion.

Zeldin, a former Long Island, NY congressman, is expected to be quickly confirmed, supported by his reputation as a moderate Republican with bipartisan ties.

Zeldin’s January 16 confirmation hearing underscored a mix of optimism among Republicans and cautious skepticism from Democrats. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) praised Zeldin’s commitment to the EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment while balancing economic considerations. She specifically touted his ability to “boost innovation for clean energy technologies and policies that strengthened our nation’s energy security”

Zeldin reiterated to the committee that he intends to strictly follow Congress’s directives. He cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits agencies’ regulatory authority without explicit statutory support. This reassurance was aimed at Republican colleagues who believe the EPA has overstepped its authority in issuing certain Biden administration rules.

During the hearing, Zeldin sought to align himself with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda and limit EPA’s regulatory authority, but he distanced himself from more controversial Trump-era proposals, such as dismantling the EPA’s enforcement office. Zeldon committed to improving collaboration with Congress, internal agency staff, and industry stakeholders, aiming for efficiency and transparency within the EPA.

Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) shared their concerns about the Biden administration’s 2023 waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which responded to the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision. Zeldin did not commit to specific actions but emphasized the importance of reviewing existing rules and ensuring the EPA provides clear and lasting guidance on WOTUS. He acknowledged that the Sackett decision was straightforward for property owners and that the Court’s guidance was clear and prescriptive.

Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) acknowledged that Zeldin had made some “good and sound” comments during his hearing but raised concerns about the influence of corporate interests on Zeldin’s agenda, citing campaign contributions, his past support for fossil fuel development and opposition to Biden-era climate policies. Zeldin assured the Senator that “no dollar, no matter how small, will influence his decisions, increase access to him, or how he would abide by the law.

TSCA Reform Takes Center Stage in House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment chose to kick off its first hearing of the new Congress examining the ongoing political and regulatory challenges surrounding the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  During the January 22 hearing entitled “A Decade Later: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.”  Republican committee members, led by Environment Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and full committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY), emphasized the need for targeted revisions to TSCA to streamline chemical reviews and ensure American industries remain competitive.  Industry leaders supported this push, as did the chemical industry’s desire for regulatory certainty and efficiency.   They argue that delays in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review process hinder innovation and provide an edge to international competitors. However, Democrats, including Subcommittee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), expressed concerns about maintaining the law’s environmental and health protections, warning against any changes that might compromise public safety.

The hearing demonstrated clear partisan divides. Republicans advocated for faster review timelines, citing the need to counter delays that frustrate industry stakeholders. Witnesses from the chemical sector, including Chris Jahn of the American Chemistry Council, stressed that EPA reviews often exceed the mandated 90-day window, undermining innovation and competitiveness. Meanwhile, Democrats questioned whether the agency’s challenges stemmed more from inadequate staffing and resources rather than flaws in the law itself. Both parties acknowledged the importance of the TSCA user-fee reauthorization due in 2026, with Republicans viewing it as an opportunity for much-needed reforms to the 10-year-old law.

The return of a Republican administration under President Donald Trump adds to the political dynamics. The reinstatement of former Trump administration officials, Lynn Dekleva, who served as associate deputy assistant administrator for new chemicals in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)  and OCSPP Deputy Chief Nancy Beck indicates President Trump intends to be less adventuresome than his predecessor  when it comes to interpreting TSCA.

Despite the partisan tensions, the hearing revealed areas of potential bipartisan collaboration. Democrats like Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Republicans like Griffith and Guthrie showed openness to improving the TSCA framework. Peters, in particular, highlighted the need for clearer risk thresholds to guide EPA’s decision-making, while Griffith reiterated the importance of timely reviews to prevent manufacturing from moving overseas. Industry stakeholders underscored that reforms must balance facilitating innovation and protecting public health.

Appropriations and Budget Reconciliation – It’s Complicated

House and Senate Republican leaders are deliberating a potential bipartisan agreement with Democrats to bundle government funding, California wildfire relief, a debt ceiling increase, and border security funding. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has proposed linking the debt ceiling to wildfire aid. At the same time, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has noted the unlikely prospect of including the debt ceiling in a GOP-crafted border and energy bill. Furthermore, tying the debt limit to relief aid is unlikely to occur because of  Democrats’ unwillingness to negotiate over disaster assistance, and the precedent could be set for the future.

Debt limit discussions between congressional GOP leaders and President Donald Trump have intensified. Trump met with Thune and Johnson on January 21 to explore ways to address the debt ceiling. While President Trump is focused on getting the debt limit issue off his plate, GOP lawmakers still haven’t agreed on whether to proceed with a one or two-bill reconciliation process.

Republicans are also struggling with internal divisions on adding a debt-limit hike to their party-line reconciliation package instead of other bills.  Conservative Republicans, including Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), strongly oppose any package that does not include spending cuts or offset disaster relief funds.

All this comes as GOP leaders face the looming March 14 deadline to keep the government funded and the need to pass the FY25 spending bills, which will also require Democratic votes in the Senate. Republicans could postpone the FY25 spending bills beyond March 14th, and the April 30th sequestration date could be “turned off.” However, the longer the spending debate drags on, the more energy it drains from Republicans’ reconciliation push.

Meanwhile, there has been some positive progress. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) and Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) are working on a top-line budget figure to advance negotiations with Democrats. The appropriators feel confident that they should have a deliverable by next week.

EPA’s Chemical Rules Under Fire: 25 Lawsuits Filed Amid Regulatory Uncertainty

The EPA faces a wave of litigation, with over 25 lawsuits filed in the past two weeks by industry, environmental, and worker safety groups challenging its new chemical regulations. The lawsuits target rules governing trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride (CTC), and the agency’s framework for reviewing new chemicals. The cases are scattered across multiple federal circuits, with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidating some of them, such as 12 petitions concerning TCE, into the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuits reflect ongoing consternation over the Biden administration’s use of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The litigation comes at a time when a Republican-controlled Congress and the incoming Trump administration may intervene to overturn these regulations under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or withdraw their defense. The EPA’s first-ever risk management rules under the updated TSCA are also under judicial review in conservative-leaning courts, such as the 5th Circuit, which has a history of skepticism toward environmental rules issued under Democratic administrations. With judicial outcomes uncertain and the potential for legislative and executive branch interventions, the future of these chemical regulations hangs in the balance and could set limits on future EPA overreach.

New Trump EOs Target EPA Workers and Moves to reclassify Federal Employees

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders (EOs) aimed at federal employees, including those at the EPA, that strip many workers of civil service protections, freeze new hiring, overhaul hiring practices, and end work-from-home allowances. One of the most contentious actions is the reclassification of many federal employees into “policy-influencing positions,” a move that effectively revives Trump’s earlier effort to make them “at-will” employees, subject to dismissal for political reasons.  The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has strongly opposed these orders, arguing that they undermine federal employee protections and turn government jobs into positions of political loyalty rather than public service.

The central order, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions within the Federal Workforce,” emphasizes accountability for employees in policy roles, asserting that their power is delegated by the President, who is the only elected official directly responsible to the American people. This order reinstates a previous Trump executive order that created Schedule F, rebranded as “Policy/Career” employees, with the stipulation that these employees must implement administration policies or face dismissal. The order also directs the Office of Personnel Management to amend civil service regulations, reversing changes made under the Biden administration, and revokes Biden’s EO 14003, which aimed to protect federal workers. This shift has sparked fears of politicizing the federal workforce and eroding its nonpartisan nature.