Lee Zeldin, now leading the EPA, took the stage at the Heartland Institute climate summit and fired a clear warning: Washington will no longer bow to alarmist climate orthodoxy. He argued that decades of elite consensus have wrecked common-sense energy policy, isolated Europe, and pushed costly, speculative plans that weaken national security. Zeldin made his case with blunt rhetoric and direct critiques of high-profile activists and politicians. His speech signaled a sharp shift toward prioritizing American energy independence and rule-of-law limits on agency power.
Zeldin began by laying out the damage he sees from what he called the “sky is falling” crowd, saying their prescriptions have harmed energy production here and abroad. He pointed to Europe as an example, arguing that leaders there weakened their own energy systems and became dependent on foreign sources. That dependency, he suggested, has serious security consequences and shows the downsides of policy driven by fear and ideology rather than by results.
The administrator credited recent political change with allowing a different approach at EPA, one that pulls back from what he described as speculative and self-harming rules. He made a blunt comparison to what might have happened with a different election outcome, painting an alternative future of continued grants and regulatory overreach. Zeldin wants the agency to operate within clear legal bounds instead of treating law as optional when it suits policy aims.
Now, if the election didn’t go the same way, in November of 2024, I’m pretty confident that whoever would be in this position instead of me might not have been here [at the conference] this morning. I’m pretty confident that instead of grants getting canceled to the tune of tens of billions, instead the grift would be continuing.
Instead of having an EPA administrator who limits their power to the best available reading of the law, we’d be continuing that status quo of an administrator who looks at the law and says, well, if the law doesn’t say I can’t, well, I guess that means I can.
It would be an EPA administrator who would go to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and nod their head in obedience and agreement to whatever is coming out of the mouths of [Rhode Island Democrat Senator] Sheldon Whitehouse and [Vermont independent] Bernie Sanders and [loony Massachusetts Senator] Ed Markey and all of their friends.
He didn’t hold back naming the usual suspects in the climate conversation, calling out high-profile activists and politicians who push worst-case narratives. Zeldin framed his stance as resistance to a script that assumes imminent global collapse and demands immediate, sweeping economic sacrifice. That posture plays well to a Republican view favoring measured policy, energy access, and skepticism of top-down models that claim certainty.
Zeldin acknowledged some technical hiccups during his talk but noted that his remarks begin around the 3:57 mark, encouraging listeners to judge the substance rather than the production glitches. He emphasized that agency decisions should be tethered to the best available reading of law and science, not the preferences of a political class claiming exclusive rights to “the science.”
The reason why it might be so controversial [to appear at this conference], the way that our first 14 months at the helm of EPA has gone, or why it might be so controversial that I’d be here speaking to a group of Americans, like all of you, is, because we aren’t just following blind obedience to whatever the dire doom and gloom prediction of the day is from, you know, John Kerry or Al Gore, AOC.
It’s controversial that we won’t sign up for the script that the world is imminently about to end.
He also criticized what he called the ruling class that decides which models and methodologies get treated as untouchable. That critique targeted the concentration of authority in a small set of elites and institutions, suggesting it stifles debate and rewards insiders. The point was procedural as much as it was substantive: who gets to set the rules, and on what legal and scientific basis?
“What happened for years and decades in this country is that the elite, the ruling class, the people who had run the agencies, the people who have decided that they are in charge of the science, the politicians, the biggest grifters, there would be a cabal that would decide exactly which model is the chosen model, which methodology is the higher methodology,” he said.
Critics from mainstream outlets labeled the summit attendees as climate deniers, a charge Zeldin and others reject as a cheap rhetorical shortcut. His message was not that climate does not change but that policy responses should be rational, accountable, and cost-effective. He argued strongly against trillion-dollar solutions that, in his view, fail to deliver commensurate benefits and instead punish productive industries and families.
For Republicans and other skeptics of sweeping climate mandates, Zeldin’s speech offered a rallying point: prioritize energy security, respect legal limits on agency authority, and keep debate open. Whether one agrees with every critique, the administration’s approach marks a clear divergence from recent regulatory trends and reasserts a different set of priorities for environmental policy and national resilience.
Add comment