A top Trump official was stunned into silence during a congressional hearing ...
Democratic Congresswoman AOC was cross-examining EPA head Lee Zeldin and she exposed that he was having private meetings with bear and other companies in order to promote glyphosate. And he walked right into the trap that AOC said, "Watch as she exposed how his EPA, how Trump's EPA was engaged in this collusive relationship with big corporations in order to promote glyphosate." Let's play this clip. Administrators Zeldin, have you ever participated
in a meeting with bear where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was
facing? No, I never did. Okay, I have my meeting with them was very brief and that's
topic did not come up. All right, are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this? I could say that I directly had a brief meeting, but it was a brief meeting and that topic did not come up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from July 7,
“2025 to the committee. And you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work?”
I'm telling you, a hundred percent, absolutely. I maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics. Are you aware of any member of your staff or your team? I, I'm not aware of that, no. Okay, I would like to submit to the records some internal emails from the EPA that I have acquired via a Freedom of Information Act as submission. That objection, sir. We have documentation here, emails from your senior advisor for agricultural
rule affairs saying that you were meeting with the Bayer CEO last year. He said in these emails that they will be bringing up some legal slash judicial issues more specifically in this internal email in your EPA. It says that Bayer was specifically seeking to end discussing Supreme Court action. It will want to update on EPA's regulatory review and that interestingly Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage from the EPA and work on Mahah. Do you have any
idea what they might have been referring to in this email? Well, first off, as I mentioned a few
minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming of potential topics. Wow, powerful
indeed. Next, I want to share with you, Democratic Congress member, Menendez, cross-examining, Zeldin here, and saying, Donald Trump asked the oil and gas industry for a billion dollars in exchange for rollbacks from the EPA. So you're just delivering on that. You're just doing the favors to the big gas and oil companies, right? Play this clip. Because you've said other
“crazy stuff today. The Biden administration, are you going to do anything at some point?”
How many instances do you ask a question? Because I moved on and you've done this numerous times. So let's just want to ask you a question. You've said that the Biden administration with the IRA had more funds than the EPA knew has been and there was waste fraud and abuse, right? And this was going out to people that were in the Biden orbit. You had said that earlier. Yet, I'm curious if you have any issue with the fact that during the 2024 campaign,
the president asked the oil and gas industry for a billion dollars in exchange for supporting
these rollbacks that the EPA is administering now. Is that an oil and issue for you that the president said to the oil and gas industry? Give me a billion dollars and I will do your work. Isn't that not the work that the EPA is doing? I don't know. Are you actually asking questions right now? I'm asking your question. Are you going to give an answer? I'm going to start an answer and then you're going to come in office. How does work? All right. Well, if that's going to be the case and I have another thing for you.
What do you think about the $220 million ad campaign that Secretary Noem had with the DHS? What do you think about the Wendor Rectualies that went directly to Wendor Rectualies? I'm talking to you. That went to Trump operative. If you speak out against that as a member of the administration.
“What the fact is that you speak out? He was giving out against the government's former Obama and Biden officials. How about the conflicts of interest during the Biden EPA that you don't want to look up?”
Well, but in the Trump administration, all right. Well, if you want, if you want to talk about the Biden administration, talk about the Trump administration, you're a part of the administration and then you don't want to see the Secretary Noem as well. You're the Secretary Noem as well. You're not going to. You want to work with the agency? Miss Zeldin. Thank you. Miss Zeldin is here to talk about the EPA not of matters. The same time.
If it's related to the EPA, you certainly can ask, but but he also hasn't rig...
Gentlemen, next you had Congress member Lanzeman cross-examining Lee Zeldin. Let's play this clip. EPA budget. Just in sort of pulling back a little bit over the course of the last 14 months. There's you all pushed for a massive spending bill, four and a half trillion dollars. Most of it went to tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy. You added trillions of dollars to the debt.
Cut health care by nearly a trillion dollars. And now you are going to cut the EPA by 50%.
“You remember Congress. Would you have supported all of this as a member of Congress?”
The work of families tax cut. Absolutely would have voted. Yes. And as I'm hearing from Americans across the country, they're really happy to get a lot more back in their tax return. And I would say that on behalf of all those Americans who have shared that, while I can share that feedback with President Trump, I'd also say to the Republicans on this committee who voted for it, "Thank you for doing your part understanding the economic concerns of Americans across this country." And you don't spend a lot of time in the other. But it's a matter of time. Mr. Zalm, you don't spend a lot of time with people right there. That really isn't true. No one's really saying thank you for cutting their health care for adding trillion dollars.
Show us how out of touch you are that you believe that Americans are not happy to get more back in their tax return. No, you don't talk to folks. There's no, like, I just, all 50 states in my first month. And people come up to you and they say, "Anyone, they do it. They do it for so much for spending trillion dollars on the super wealthy and cutting our health care."
“That's what they tell you. No, they don't repeat yourself. And they ask you for a greater asking you to shift all of this pressure and having more money in our wall.”
This pressure, many back to a poor, the heater home and full up our gas tank. So it's very gross, it's so absurd. That's what they say. So that's what they say. They don't repeat it. They don't say that. They absolutely don't. They don't say that they're grateful for having more back in their tax return. No, they're positioned. That shows how many dollars you are shifting money to the state.
So this is, this is Rusfolk, right? He's the head of OMB. He sets the policy free fall of view. He came to you and said, "I got to cut your budget by 50 percent."
The EPA is there to protect the environment and Americans. And you just say, okay, is that how it works? Like, because this is Rusfolk who was the architect, one of the key architects of Project 225, which was, we're going to decimate the federal government, shift the cost burden back to states. And we'll free up all this money for test cuts for the super wealthy and you were like, okay, that's fine. No, that is not what happened. So Rusfolk doesn't make this call. The budget that I'm here before Congress is a budget that I support, that I take responsibility for crafting.
Why suspect he is glad to hear him short? Yeah, I'm sure he's happy with the budget that we, he crafted. But that's not true. It is true. Okay. Well, you're entitled to your own version of, and then you have Congress member, Outgun Clause for Massachusetts,
saying, "How are we going to get rid of the PFAS in municipal water supplies with 90 percent fewer dollars?"
How are you going to get rid of all of these agents in the water? These pollutants in the water, these things that are causing lots of sickness. If you've just gutted the entire investment in order to make the supply better, you're playing this clip. You're proposing to cut, again, this cycle, 90 percent. I've now talked to your top staffers.
“I've talked to the top technologists. The technology isn't there. So how do we get rid of PFAS in municipal water supplies?”
Do you agree with the problem? I agree with the problem, it affects your state, it affects my state, with 90 percent fewer dollars. So it's your position that there's no PFAS destruction technologies that merit any conversation here. There's tons. What I am saying is, at the point of production, yes, for dredge at landfills, yes. I'm talking about municipal water supplies to get to four to eight points per trillion. I mean, it was your staff in the top technologist. They were in my office. They were talking about this.
It isn't there. So if you are a town in New York right now, one of the towns that you championed
when you were a congressman for PFAS dollars, what are they going to do with 90 percent fewer dollars to get rid of PFAS?
Well, first off, as I referenced earlier, what we don't do in our proposed budget is factor in how much you are going to want to raid the SRF for earmarks. That's a decision for you to decide to make. Now, I'm not weighing in on the merits. And I'm going to all pine on what you choose to
Advocate for your district on.
propose your earmarks for you. We're also not your plan, etc. Your EPA plan for clean water is to
“hope that numbers of congressmen. I'm not hoping that members of congressmen were rated. I know that”
members of congressmen are going to rate it and they've been doing it for a long time. There's a reason why the revolving fund is not revolving is because there are members who take money out of the revolving fund, and they give it as earmarks to members of their district. And by the way, there are a lot of fantastic examples of how members I'm sure of this committee have secured these
earmarks for their district. And this would have gotten about 40 million back from my
dissolving fund anymore for a clean water shoe. I see you wanted to revolve, you can make shorts properly funded by getting rid of the congressional and directed spending. If congress chooses not to, I'm going to say that they continue to have this problem. You're in charge of the EPA budget. You're not in charge of earmarks and hope is not a strategy. Next, you have Democratic Senator
“Mark Kelly. Watch as he just tries to ask a very simple question and Zeldin has no answer at”
all. Play this clip. Here's a thing though. Your agency created a website specifically to invite companies to fast-track waiver requests. And a FOIA request shows that the company spoke with your staff to coordinate this request. This wasn't just like something for the president that the president did. Your EPA may not be granting the exemptions, but you went through great lengths to make sure that that was facilitated. So, I mean, this is a mile away from a school.
This thing is spewing out 12 tons of lead every single year. The bag costs $60 million.
Mr. Zeldin, can I get a commitment from you to fix this? Can you go to the president and say, hey, we made a mistake. I mean, this was not. Companies have responsibilities in these communities. Can I get a commitment from you to work with my office, work with the president, to undo
“this, just for my own background. Because this is first time we're talking about it. Do you know”
if anyone from your team agrees this to ours before now? Or is this the first time that we're engaging on this topic? Well, it's the first time we are engaged. We are and we've engaged in other topics. This is a serious issue for the community in Miami. I hope that at this point after all of the many other topics that you've engaged us with that we've been able to a very successfully work together on. I'll just tell you, my role has been on these exemptions to receive and
transmit. I could pursue into the statute. If there's something specific beyond that, it's merits a follow-up conversation, but it's not for me that it wasn't. I'm not aware of you. From what we know, it wasn't just received. The website was set up. There was coordination with your staff. You provide no recommendation to the White House on this at all. I transmit and submit. That's a receive entrance mitt. But your job is to look out for the health of the American
People's fall in the statute. But how about the kids that go to that school and people that go to that church? I mean, I would love to have an opportunity to try to solve this problem. It's
$60 million to a company that made $2.7 billion. I'm not saying you specifically. I'm saying this
administration, the White House, but the profits of that company over the health of those children. The only issue is as I sit here. I don't have the, I would like to have the information out, the company and the technology. We will get it to you. Because as I sit here, it's the first time that anyone has raised it. We will get you all the information. Thank you. And next, you have Democratic Senator White House who just absolutely philase leseld in Donald Trump's
EPA administrator. Let's play it. But the big winners getting the pollute for free are your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. His EPA looking at all at Florida's climate, climate, driven insurance crisis. So to be clear, everything about the nine cents, all you want to ask me is where I have a nine cents is less than 18 cents. No, I just thought I'm understanding. This is really my question. I'm going to move on to the next one. If I'm acting right, if you will
officially, all you want to know that nine cents is less than 18 cents. You don't actually talk about the issue. You're already answered that. Now you're just wasting my time. Now that's nothing other than the official nine cents, the 18 is wasted on the top of the cost of Americans gasoline budgets. Your own regulatory impact analysis put the net loss to consumers at $180 billion, but with a minimum, minimum, 580 billion bonus for big oil at the pump.
All those billions go to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Those are your
Numbers, Mr.
Americans tens of billions and added health care costs all to save about $600 million in compliance
“costs for your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You stopped EPA even counting health”
harms in your cost benefit analysis, didn't you? I'm still stuck on the fact that you all you're asking me for an effect. And then you're not going to answer that question unless the 18, you attacked the go on top of what an LCO is. I get the time here. I get to ask the questions. You attacked the greenhouse gas reduction fund, potentially costing consumers $52 billion in lost energy savings, let alone the health benefits of cleaner air. But that 52 billion consumers lose, will flow where
to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Did though the solar for all funding that
you attacked, trying to strip Americans of $350 million per year and expected energy savings billions
over time, those lost savings go where to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You even set up a special polluter email address that gave polluters a drive-up window for exemptions from the Clean Air Act, helping them keep 70 polluting coal plants online. One estimate is that just six of those plants have already cost rate payers an extra $230 million in costs in less than one year. And indeed one plant in Michigan has already cost-missure genders $600 million in excess health
costs. That is money out of consumers' pockets and into the pockets of your fossil fuel polluters Trump's big donors. Can we talk about you? You've been tracking the consumer cost of those coal plants.
“We're going to get to talk about math. Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?”
Oh, this is great. So I don't even know where to start with all the mess of that question. Are you even tracking of the consumer costs of those coal plants? Yeah, and costs are going down across the country when you look at EPA's, where are you tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants? When you look at EPA's, are you kidding me? coal plants even staying open? You think that the math is it's better for West Virginia if you close down their coal plants and put these people
out of work and tell them to learn a code. Important to you, when you're in that saving West Virginia is raising, is it saving them on energy? No, it's raising cost. Is it saving them on job? You can talk across me all you like, you are raising costs. Raising costs on purpose if we have the money that you get when you raise costs from consumers goes to Trump's big fossil fuel. We don't close down my time it's up. How about Congress member harder? I thought his cross examination was pretty good as
well. Let's play this clip. This is that the EPA made under your leadership was to repeal higher mercury and air toxic standards. Tell me a little bit about why you did that, and specifically why you left out the health impacts in that analysis. So you're referring to the 2024 mercury in air toxic standards. We kept in place the strict 2012 mercury in air toxic standards that we're working. There was a targeted effort towards the end of the Biden administration through a number
of rules to try to tell coal miners that they should learn to code and to try to make coal plants across this country shut down. Seymaletric GLC, coal combustion residual, clean power plan 2.0, there was 2024 mercury in air toxic standards collectively. There were coal plants all across the entire country that were targeted for extinction because of it and now they're able to stay open. coal and natural gas, they provide these policies. Specifically, why did you analysis
of the impacts of this repeal not include the health impacts to the populations that are going to bear this increase in mercury pollution? Oh, we absolutely consider the health impacts of mercury. There was no qualified health impact in that analysis. So I'm mistaken. We absolutely
value the impact. But the whole reason why we have mercury in air toxic standards in the first place
is because of the health impacts of mercury in air toxic standards. But in the repeal, how much
“do you think it's actually going to? What are the health harms of this repeal?”
Could be zero. You think doubling the amount of mercury pollution in the air is going to lead to zero health harms? Where did you get doubling from? That's the impact of the return of the 20. Where did you get it from? The doubling. So the 2020-12 standards, you mentioned that you're going back to the 2020-12. Where's your math from? Here we go. I'm not Secretary Kennedy. I watched you're hearing with him last week. It is, I'm in the war. The standards from 2024 are 70% higher
In the standards from 2024.
you're going to regret it. We're about to do this. We're your position is that we are doubling the amount of mercury that you are allowing 70% higher mercury standards. Yeah. No. So I'm allowing 70% now I'm saying, now you're saying 70% that had 70% stricter standards. The 2024
“standard than the 2020-12 standards. So the nationwide tolerance and the math behind this?”
There we go. The nationwide tons of mercury emissions from coal plants. If the math 2024 was still in place from 2028 to 2037 was 33.2. The nationwide tons of mercury emissions from coal plants and mercury nitoxics standards was repealed from 2028 to 237. It's 39.3 at most. That's assuming that no coal plant at all will voluntarily take any action whatsoever to install any control devices. So at most the math ends up being 15.5 to 18.3% which is
significantly less in double. The estimates that I've seen are as much as 1,500 additional pounds of mercury in the air. Rip it up. Have your dog pee on it. It's just not accurate. And you saw this exchange between Democratic Senator Padilla and EPA Secretary Zeldin. Let's play
“this clip. When you came in, you promised a cleanest air in history.”
Do you believe the air loss hand looks to air across the country is cleaner than when the administration started? Yes. I've seen over the course of with now just to remind you, Lee Zeldin, who's the head of the EPA, he says that climate change is a hoax and doesn't exist here. Play this clip. Lee, I can't believe just years when everybody would say climate change was a third rail. Don't bring it up. The president says it is a hoax. It is a con job.
Where do you fall on this? The president is absolutely right. And we've seen in the name of climate change, these left-wing policies willing to cause extreme economic pain for people who can
least afford it. We've seen in the name of climate justice grants to 50 million dollars to climate
justice alliance. They say the climate justice runs through a free Palestine. In the name of environmental justice, they will have tens of billions of dollars go to their well-connected left-wing former Obama and Biden officials and Democratic donors rather than directly towards environmental remediation. And they're willing to suffocate out entire sectors of our energy economy. And that that caused a loss of jobs, higher energy costs. So, President Trump is
absolutely right. It's something that with eyes wide open, the Trump mandate is being implemented all year long at the Trump EPA and across the Trump administration. And the rest of the world is taking notice because they're having some of the same problems in their own country. And in order to really get that job, he had to be this Trump magesic event here. He was with Don Jr. in 2024 in order to try to prove his loyalty to Donald Trump. Let's play this clip.
Just so we're clear, because they're going to start this one. It's like, you know, they'll use the fact that there's basically no majority in the house. There's nothing, you know,
they're going to use that. And they're going to try to flip it like, I don't know, we couldn't give you something. If you rolled over and everything, this bill that I'm reading about now, this wait for bill. And this is a Republican Senator agreeing with Chacha 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, every day, forever. I'll remind you of this. I thought great moment earlier this week where King Charles was calling out the importance of respecting our climate, our shared climate in the world. And then the
C-span camera goes right to Lee Zeldin, who doesn't believe in climate change at all, who's the head of the EPA. You're playing this clip. As we celebrate the beauty that surrounds our generation must decide how to address the collapse of critical natural systems which threatens
“far more than the harmony and essential diversity of nature. We ignore at our peril, the fact that”
these natural systems, in other words, nature's own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our natural security. There you have it folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe.
Let's get to 7 million subscribers powerful cross-exams.
Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscribers for our sub-stack at mitisplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Montreal County and three episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content, only available at mitisplus.com.
