EPA chief Zeldin announces overhauls to bring agency back to Reagan-level staffing
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing a massive overhaul to slash staffing down to Reagan-era levels and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year, agency chief Lee Zeldin announced on Friday.
"This reorganization will bring much-needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our rulemakings and sharply focus our work on providing the cleanest air, land, and water for our communities," Zeldin said in a press release on Friday.
Zeldin announced that he is on a mission to save taxpayers an estimated $300 million annually by next year through an office overhaul that he said will maintain the EPA's focus on protecting human health and the environment while "recommitting" the agency to "common sense policies."
The EPA employs roughly 15,000 full-time workers, which Zeldin said he is working to bring down to levels "near those seen when President Ronald Reagan occupied the White House," according to a video announcement of the office overhauls. There were 11,400 EPA staffers in 1984 under the Reagan administration, Reuters reported.
35 Democrats Vote With Gop To Block Biden Rule Allowing Newsom's Gas Car Ban
The EPA said the Office of the Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), and Office of Water will all face restructuring.
Read On The Fox News App
Zeldin said he will reorganize the agency's research office to shift its focus on "statutory obligations and mission-essential functions," including by creating a new office called the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions.
The new office will "prioritize research and put science at the forefront of the agency's rulemakings and technical assistance to states. At the program level, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention will add more than 130 scientific, technical, bioinformatic and information technology experts to work directly on the backlog of over 504 new chemicals in review that are beyond the statutorily required timeframe. And they're also going to address the backlog of over 12,000 reviews that are well beyond the expected review timelines in the pesticides program," Zeldin said.
Epa Chief Takes On Mexican 'Sewage Crisis' Flowing Into Us Waters Where Navy Seals Train
The EPA will also create the Office of State Air Partnerships within the Office of Air and Radiation, which Zeldin said will streamline resolving air permitting concerns across the state, local and tribal levels.
"EPA is also creating the Office of Clean Air programs that will align statutory obligations and mission essential functions based on centers of expertise to ensure more transparency and harmony in regulatory development. Similarly, changes to the Office of Water will better align the development of regulations, guidance and policy with the science that underpins it," Zeldin added of another new office in the agency shakeup.
Peta, Animal Rights Groups Praise Trump Admin For Phasing Out 'Cruel Tests On Dogs' And Other Animals
Zeldin underscored that when he took the reins of the agency earlier this year, he "inherited a workforce that didn't come into the office."
"In 2024, the record high day of attendance at EPA headquarters in D.C., clocked in around 37%. Upon President Trump's swearing in, we immediately ended COVID-era remote work," Zeldin said.
Scoop: Biden-era Grant Program Described As 'Gold Bar' Scheme By Trump Epa Administrator Under Scrutiny
The former New York congressman added that EPA's budget and awards in granted last year alone, under the Biden administration, sat at $63 billion — though it had previously been funded to the tune of between $6 billion and $8 billion a year, he said.
"We are going to massively reduce this excess spending. We owe it to the American taxpayer to be as efficient as possible. We've already started to make significant progress by re-examining grants and contracts, real estate footprint, travel costs, staff and more. With the help of DOGE, EPA has identified and canceled more than $22 billion in grants and contracts. These are direct savings for the American people," Zeldin said.Original article source: EPA chief Zeldin announces overhauls to bring agency back to Reagan-level staffing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
28 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Sunrun CEO Warns Against Congressional 'Rug Pull' on Clean Energy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The U.S. solar industry took a hit late last month when Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the "big beautiful" budget reconciliation bill that would largely eliminate tax credits for clean energy. Those Biden-era incentives for renewable energy, battery manufacturing, EVs and other clean tech have driven hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in renewable energy. Without the tax policy, analysts warn, more than $500 billion worth of announced but pending investments in the clean tech sector are at risk. Shares for rooftop solar companies tumbled on news of the bill's passage. California-based Sunrun, a leader in combining rooftop solar with home battery energy storage, saw shares plunge nearly 40 percent on news of the bill's passage. "We immediately went to work on how we can ensure our message about the importance of what we do for Americans on energy independence and advancing the agenda around energy dominance is heard," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell told Newsweek as she and colleagues in the clean energy sector attempt to change the bill. "Without changes it would be ripping the rug out from under 5 million plus customers." The company's stock price has since regained much of its value as attention turns to the Senate where the renewable energy industry is hoping that cooler heads will prevail and restore some elements of support. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva/Sunrun Industry executives argue that as the U.S. enters a period of surging demand for electricity, solar, wind and battery storage are often the fastest and cheapest ways to add power. Last year, some combination of renewable energy and storage accounted for roughly 90 percent of new additions to the nation's electric grid. The House bill's draconian cuts to renewable energy pose particular threats to rooftop and community solar. In addition to repealing tax credits far sooner than initially intended, the bill would eliminate the ability to transfer the credits and restrict the use of tax credits in lease arrangements for solar installations, which is a common business model for solar companies. Clean tech companies are also counting on the local economic impact of investments that flowed to red states and Republican Congressional Districts as the renewable energy industry brings more manufacturing on shore to reduce dependence on imported products. About two dozen Republican members of Congress have signed letters supporting the clean energy tax credits, including four influential members of the Senate. Newsweek spoke with Powell, a power industry veteran, about how the industry and her company hope to persuade members of the Senate to make changes. Powell has been Sunrun's CEO since 2021and before that she led Green Mountain Power Corporation, Vermont's main electricity provider, for more than a decade. This conversation has been lightly edited for length. Newsweek: What are your chances of getting this bill to change? And, I guess it would have to change somewhat dramatically from the version that passed the House. Mary Powell: We had multiple conversations with Members to make sure the depth of what we bring to the United States from an energy independence perspective was understood. All of that work will be imported as the Senate now tackles the latest language that ultimately came out of the House. I've been in energy for about 24 years, and I like to say there's always a gravitational pull towards things landing in a commonsense way, something that is supportive of what needs to happen in terms of the American economy and energy capacity. So, I continue to believe that this will land in a reasonable place because that's what would make the most sense for Americans. It also makes the most sense in the context of the President's agenda, which is really about growth, about energy capacity, about making sure that we have enough resources to grow and ensure that we're meeting all the demands of the future. Given how much of the development and economic benefits from the clean energy sector have happened in Republican districts, I think it was a disappointment to a lot of folks in the sector to not see any of those Republicans who had signed letters of support for the credits actually stand up. What do you make of that? It seems like that indicates soft support for the tax credits given the other hard choices they have to make. The reality is America has built a thriving storage and solar industry, which is powering over 300,000 jobs. We now have 330 U.S.-based manufacturing facilities and $285 billion of investments. So yes, to your point, there are a lot of reasons for folks to support this. There was strong support in the House, there have been strong supporters and statements in the Senate. This was middle-of-the-night legislation and resolving of party differences. And I feel very clear that a lot of those leaders in the House are still going to be working very hard ultimately to land us in a place that makes sense. The process is rarely, in my experience, clean, straightforward and simple. On the Senate side, we have four fairly prominent Republican senators who have signed a letter in support of keeping the clean energy tax credits. What makes you think that those senators would be more inclined to follow through on that versus what we saw happen in the House? The language as written now would have dramatic impacts in a lot of states that are really important to Republican Senate leadership. And I think the Senate is known for historically really working hard to strike that balance of what ultimately makes sense for Americans. I think they're very sensitive to not doing dramatic rug pulls out from under industry. So, as things work through the process and people start to stare at the stark realities of moving in such a knee-jerk fashion, I think you'll see more and more really start to focus on, 'How do we land this in a way that is not so disruptive to the American economy and so disruptive to the American energy independence agenda?' Many are very concerned about this issue of capacity. At Sunrun, we're really America's storage company. We're bringing on the equivalent of a nuclear power plant a year in terms of dispatchable energy capacity because we are leaning in so hard to storage. My experience would suggest—and my conversations would suggest—that their job is to land in a place that is not so highly disruptive to the economies of the very states that they all go home to. And what do you say to the critics of the tax credits who argue that your business, your industry, should be able to compete without the subsidies? What's really important is we're deploying way newer technology. So, we're using the tax structure to accelerate the adoption of storage, which from a mass market perspective has really only been around for a couple of years. It's really important to remember that the tax structure for us, for the work we're doing is not, it's not about supporting a technology that has been around for 15 or 20 years, it's actually supporting innovation around technology As a former utility executive, I care deeply about America having enough energy capacity. I'm all in on nuclear, on all these resources that we need. But the reality is, they're really hard to build and they take a lot of time. So, we can scale fast with these [storage battery] technologies. I think as people understand that it opens up a different perspective. On top of that, I would also say that what we've been advocating for is just a reasonable glide path. The languages as it sits now is sort of the opposite of fostering capitalism and a productive economy in the United States. You just don't do rug pulls, you come up with a structured way to allow capitalism and innovation to respond. On that topic, what might a glide path for phasing out the credits look like? I'll point back to what the House Ways and Means Committee did. I think things needed work from that bill, but you know, in, in the context of how I might structure a glide path, it would be maybe more extended than what they did. But it was very thoughtful. And what do you say to folks on the Hill in regard to the U.S. positioning itself to compete with China and other countries for this industry of the future? That's one of the many reasons why it's so important that we come up with a really smart, thoughtful glide path. Because we don't have a chance of winning the race with China if we don't scale at a faster clip in terms of our own energy capacity. Just look at what's happening with AI. We need to scale quickly, and this is a really strong way to contribute to that effort. This industry has contributed to America's energy dominance across the world and independence at home. A lot of onshoring has been done. Are there challenges going deep into the supply chain? Yes, as is true for a lot of products in the United States. With the appropriate glide path, you're incentivizing all of that innovation and capitalism to do that sort of last step in the onshoring. That really puts America in an incredibly strong place from an energy independence and manufacturing perspective.
