Raised on the South Shore of Long Island, where salty air, working-class grit, and a reputation for blunt, no-nonsense exchanges shape both character and politics, William Floyd High School graduate Lee Zeldin built his public persona early. The Shirley native, now serving as EPA administrator, has long carried that hometown edge into Washington, an approach that was on full display during a fiery Capitol Hill clash with Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
The tense exchange unfolded during a hearing on environmental policy and federal funding, with DeLauro pressing Zeldin on climate change and the agency’s role.
“When climate change is flooding our streets, poisoning our air, driving up healthcare and disaster costs, how can the EPA justify abandoning that duty to protect Americans to appease polluters under the false flag of economic growth?” DeLauro asked.
Zeldin shot back: “Following the law. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, where does it say anything about fighting global climate change?”
“…,” DeLauro responded, before Zeldin pressed further: “Loper Bright. Supreme Court case. You’re familiar with it?”
“No, maybe others are, I’m not, but let me ask...” DeLauro began.
“But that’s really important. As an agency, we don’t have the authority to get creative,” Zeldin said.
The exchange escalated quickly.
“No, no, but you do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax, and that’s where this administration is coming from,” DeLauro said.
“I understand you’re upset that you don’t know what Loper Bright is. Do you know what the major questions doctrine is?” Zeldin replied.
“I’m upset because...” DeLauro began.
“Do you know what the major questions doctrine is? You’re a member of Congress, you should know,” Zeldin continued.
“Well, you have moved from someone who defended the environment to all of a sudden being very defensive,” DeLauro said.
“You’re being very defensive about not knowing the two biggest landmark Supreme Court cases of the last year with regards to your question.
You are very defensive about changing your policy and your positions with regard to the environment.
Now just tell me...”
“Do you want me to tell you what the two biggest Supreme Court cases are of the last few years?” Zeldin interjected.
“That’s what I want you to tell me,” DeLauro said.
“Michigan versus EPA. Loper Bright.
You know, you’re here because you need money from us, so halt for a second and wait for the questions and answer the questions,” Zeldin said.
“Oh, I answered your question...” DeLauro responded.
“No, you didn’t. And you didn’t like my answer because you don’t know what Loper Bright is, because you don’t know what the major questions doctrine is, because you’re asking me about Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and you don’t read it, you don’t know what it says.
Listen, what you want to do is...”
“No, I actually read the law. I do my homework,” DeLauro interrupted.
“Really? You’re just somebody who likes to have the microphone on.
You know what I have to do? I read the law. I read the Supreme Court cases.
And what you should do for your constituents is actually read statutes.
Your message is at real risk. Read your Supreme Court...”
“This is the Appropriations Committee. You come here—you care about science—now you’re threatening to defund it,” DeLauro said.
“Oh my God, no, you don’t fund science.
Because you don’t know what Loper Bright is, because you don’t know what the major questions doctrine is, your message to our folks at the EPA is...”
“I don’t have to listen to this BS,” DeLauro fired back.
“BS? You think I made up these cases?” Zeldin said.
“Yeah, I think you have made up a whole lot of...”
“I made up Loper Bright? I made up West Virginia versus EPA? I made up Michigan versus EPA?” Zeldin responded.
“What are you doing? Why are you helping polluters?” DeLauro asked.
The confrontation underscored the deep partisan divide over environmental policy, with Zeldin leaning on legal interpretations and Supreme Court precedent, while DeLauro framed the issue as a pressing public health and climate crisis.