Zeldin’s illegal plan to gut the federal agency is poised to torpedo environmental safeguards while undermining the Constitution

Washington, D.C.—Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and Committee member Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-M.D), who represents nearly 150,000 federal workers, led all EPW Democrats in demanding answers from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about his illegal scheme to gut the agency.  President Trump recently announced that Administrator Zeldin planned to fire 65 percent of staff at EPA, but Administrator Zeldin subsequently clarified that he actually plans to slash EPA spending by at least 65 percent. 

Either would be devastating.  Firing more than 10,000 EPA workers or making deep budget cuts would make it impossible for the agency to protect the American public’s clean air and water and to prevent toxic pollution, and any of Administrator Zeldin’s efforts to manipulate agency spending levels would violate congressional authority.

“Your intention to do either of these things—fire large numbers of EPA staff or proceed with deep budget cuts—raises serious concerns.  EPA could not fulfill its mission of protecting our air and water and preventing toxic pollution if its staff or budget were cut by 65 percent.  Moreover, you do not have legal authority to set EPA’s spending levels; that power is reserved under Article I of the Constitution to Congress,” wrote Senators Whitehouse, Alsobrooks, Sanders, Merkley, Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff, and Blunt Rochester. 

“[A]ny decision to fire large numbers of EPA staff calls into question the probity of the statements you made on this subject at your confirmation hearing not even two months ago.  Each time you were asked about your plans for agency staffing, you assured Committee members that you looked forward to working ‘collaboratively’ with EPA’s dedicated staff …. During your confirmation hearing, you also told members of the Committee on eight separate occasions that you would ‘not prejudge[e] outcomes’ or made substantially identical statements.  It is difficult to understand how a decision to cut two-thirds of a federal agency’s staff or budget when Trump-affiliated groups had been urging a similar course of action since before President Trump even took office is anything other than a ‘prejudged outcome,’” the Senators continued.  “Please describe how you believe that any largescale firing of EPA employees will ‘support career staff who have dedicated’ themselves to EPA’s mission and ‘foster a collaborative culture within the agency,’ as you pledged under oath to do during your confirmation hearing.”

In accordance with the President’s directives to gut the civil service, agency heads are required to submit their plans for cutting staff to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) by March 13, 2025.  EPW Democrats are demanding answers from Administrator Zeldin by March 11, 2025.

The text of the letter is below, and a full version (with footnotes) is available HERE.

Dear Administrator Zeldin,

On February 26, 2025, President Trump said that you planned to fire 65 percent of staff at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Hours later, a White House spokesperson stated that the President misspoke and that you instead planned to cut EPA spending by 65 percent.  You then doubled down a day later, telling Spectrum News in an interview that you had shared with President Trump that a 65 percent budget cut was a “‘low number’” and that you believe “‘that the EPA can save even more than 65 percent of our budget year over year.’”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released a memorandum on February 26, 2025 outlining a multi-month process for reducing the size of the federal workforce.  The Agency Reduction in Force and Reorganization Plan (ARRP) process detailed in this memo requires agency heads to submit “Phase 1 ARRPs” and “Phase 2 ARRPs” to provide an accounting of the agency’s reduction in force (RIF) plans, including numerical data and justification.  Those submissions are due on March 13 and April 14 of this year, respectively.

Your intention to do either of these things—fire large numbers of EPA staff or proceed with deep budget cuts—raises serious concerns.  EPA could not fulfill its mission of protecting our air and water and preventing toxic pollution if its staff or budget were cut by 65 percent.  Moreover, you do not have legal authority to set EPA’s spending levels; that power is reserved under Article I of the Constitution to Congress. 

Finally, any decision to fire large numbers of EPA staff calls into question the probity of the statements you made on this subject at your confirmation hearing not even two months ago.  Each time you were asked about your plans for agency staffing, you assured Committee members that you looked forward to working “collaboratively” with EPA’s dedicated staff.  Notably, you were pressed on this point because individuals closely affiliated with President Trump were championing mass firings even before he took office.  On November 15, 2024, for example, Forbes reported that Elon Musk had stated that he would seek to cut up to 75% of federal agencies and implement workforce reductions similar to those he implemented at Twitter, where he cut 80% of staff.  During your confirmation hearing, you also told members of the Committee on eight separate occasions that you would “not prejudge[e] outcomes” or made substantially identical statements.   It is difficult to understand how a decision to cut two-thirds of a federal agency’s staff or budget when Trump-affiliated groups had been urging a similar course of action since before President Trump even took office is anything other than a “prejudged outcome.”

Accordingly, in order to assist in our investigation of statements by both the White House and you that you plan to eliminate 65 percent of EPA staff or cut agency spending by 65 percent or more, please respond to the following questions no later than March 10, 2025.

  1. Are President Trump’s comments that EPA plans to fire approximately 65 percent of its staff accurate?
  1. Is the White House statement that you plan to cut EPA spending by 65 percent accurate?  If not, is the 65 percent estimate too low or too high?  Please explain in detail your plans for cutting EPA spending.
  1. If President Trump’s statements related to EPA staffing are not accurate, what are your plans for complying with the OMB/OPM ARRP memo and what percentage of EPA staff are you planning on firing?  Please detail your layoff plans (dates employees will be fired and number of employees to be fired) across EPA’s various divisions (Office of the Administrator (OA), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), Office of Mission Support (OMS), Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of Water (OW), and EPA’s ten Regional Offices).
  1. If President Trump’s statements related to EPA staffing are accurate, when did EPA determine that it would eliminate approximately 65 percent of EPA?  How did EPA determine that a 65 percent reduction in staff was appropriate?  Was this your own determination as Administrator, or the recommendation of other officials or outside groups?  Please list any parties—whether inside or outside the Trump Administration—who were consulted on EPA’s planning regarding layoffs.  Provide any communications (including but not limited to emails, text messages, and memoranda)—dating from November 1, 2024 to present—between and among the EPA and White House officials, members of the Trump 2024 campaign, members of the Trump-Vance Transition Team, OMB staff, OPM staff, Elon Musk, individuals affiliated with the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” Mandy Gunasekara, or Russell Vought concerning EPA’s RIF plans.
  2. Please describe how you believe that any largescale firing of EPA employees will “support career staff who have dedicated” themselves to EPA’s mission and “foster a collaborative culture within the agency,” as you pledged under oath to do during your confirmation hearing.
  1. If the White House statement that you plan to cut EPA spending by 65 percent is accurate, as it seems to be based on your follow-up statement that 65 percent may be an underestimate, please provide the legal authority for making such a budget cut.  We note that any Executive Order or executive branch memorandum does not have the force of law, and so are requesting that you cite to specific statutory or Constitutional language that provides you such authority.
  2. Do you agree that, under the Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to set spending levels and determine how appropriated funds will be spent?
  1. Please itemize the 65 percent (or more) spending reduction that you are planning to implement.  Please list all programs you plan to cut and the amounts of money you plan to save from each by fiscal year.  Please also detail your planned spending reductions (amounts by fiscal year) across EPA’s various divisions (Office of the Administrator (OA), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), Office of Mission Support (OMS), Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of Water (OW), and EPA’s ten Regional Offices).

Thank you for your cooperating in this matter.