It Took Lee Zeldin Just 3 Words To Send Adam Schiff Into A Tizzy
'I understand you are an aspiring fiction writer'
Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light to help "save the environment." Companies are incentivized to include it, while most drivers hate it.
And now Trump is fixing it with the same bureaucracy that started it: the Environmental Protection Agency.
One test showed that over 900 miles in a month, the system saved just 0.02 gallons of gas.
If you’ve driven a new car in the last decade, you’ve likely encountered this maddening feature known as start/stop technology. You’re sitting at a red light, minding your own business, when your engine suddenly shuts off — only to sputter back to life as you ease off the brake.
It’s supposed to save fuel and “fight climate change,” but for most drivers, it’s a headache-inducing nuisance that makes you want to trade in your car faster than you can say “nanny state.”
Which is why we're all thankful for EPA head Lee Zeldin's May 12 announcement that the agency is scrapping mandates on this despised technology, giving drivers a rare win against bureaucratic overreach.
Zeldin didn’t pull punches, calling start/stop tech a “climate participation trophy” that “everyone hates.” He even shared an image of the dashboard button millions of drivers have come to know all too well — a circled “A” with the word “OFF” next to it, the first thing many of us press every time we get behind the wheel.
“EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it,” Zeldin declared. And judging by the sentiment on X, Instagram, Facebook, and others, he’s absolutely right about the “everyone hates it” part.
Let’s rewind for a moment. Start/stop technology was forced on the automotive industry during the Obama administration’s crusade for stricter fuel economy standards. The concept sounds noble enough: If your car isn’t idling at a stoplight or in traffic, you’re not burning fuel or spewing emissions.
Automakers, under pressure to meet the 2012 CAFE standards of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, eagerly adopted the tech. Early studies painted a rosy picture — a 2011 report claimed up to 20% emissions reductions in diesel vehicles during urban driving, and AAA estimated in 2014 that the average driver could save about $179 a year in fuel costs thanks to a 7% boost in fuel economy.
But here’s the catch: Those numbers don’t hold up in the real world. Car sales experts have run the numbers and found the savings to be laughably small — one test showed that over 900 miles in a month, the system saved just 0.02 gallons of gas. That’s right, two-hundredths of a gallon. You’d save more fuel by skipping a quick trip to get a coffee than you would with this so-called “green” innovation.
Meanwhile, the downsides are glaringly obvious. The constant on-off cycling feels jarring, especially in stop-and-go traffic. Drivers across the internet (and especially in our comment sections) consistently report that it’s the first feature they disable every time they start their cars.
But here’s the rub: Manufacturers, egged on by EPA incentives, made sure the system turns back on by default every time you start your engine. You can’t permanently disable it without jumping through hoops or paying for aftermarket fixes — a perfect example of government meddling making life harder for no good reason.
Beyond the sheer annoyance, start/stop tech poses real safety concerns. Drivers have reported dangerous scenarios where the system creates a delay at the worst possible moment — like when you’re in the middle of a busy intersection, trying to make a left turn, and your engine decides it’s time for a quick nap.
Even a half-second lag as the engine restarts can spell trouble, especially in high-pressure situations. For a feature that’s supposed to save a few drops of gas, that’s a risk most of us aren’t willing to take.
Then there’s the toll it takes on your vehicle. Starting an engine causes more wear on components like the starter motor and battery than keeping it running. With start/stop tech, a typical commute can involve up to 100 times more engine starts compared to a car without the system.
Automakers have tried to address this with more durable parts and advanced lubricants, as noted in a 2022 Autocar report, but the long-term impact on engine life remains a big question mark.
Diesel vehicle owners face even more headaches — issues with diesel exhaust fluid systems can trigger “limp mode” or even leave you stranded with a warning that your engine will shut down completely after a few hundred kilometers. For a technology that’s supposed to make driving more efficient, it’s causing an awful lot of chaos.
Ditching the mandates is a rare moment of common sense in an era when government overreach often takes precedence over practicality.
Drivers in online communities celebrated the news, with many calling it the most annoying “feature” in modern cars. Some suggested manufacturers should offer a simple dealership fix to disable the system permanently — no expensive aftermarket chips required. Others proposed flipping the script entirely: Make the system off by default, and let drivers turn it on if they want to play eco hero.
This rollback is part of a larger effort by the EPA to cut burdensome regulations. In March 2025, the agency announced plans to target dozens of rules, including some tied to vehicle emissions.
Environmentalists, as expected, are crying foul, claiming that scrapping start/stop tech will lead to more pollution and health risks. But let’s get real — fuel savings of 3%-10% (that's .5 to 2mpg difference) are a drop in the bucket compared to the aggravation and potential safety hazards this tech creates. If the government wants to tackle climate change, it should focus on solutions that don’t make everyday life harder for hardworking Americans.
This rollback is also a victory for drivers who just want to get from point A to point B without their car playing eco warrior at every stoplight.
It’s also a reminder that not every “green” idea is a good one. Drivers have long argued that they should have control over their own vehicles — after all, if you’re shelling out on average $50,000 for a new car, you shouldn’t have to fight a government-mandated feature to drive it the way you want.
A simple software update could allow owners to permanently disable the system, but until now, manufacturers have been more interested in pleasing regulators than their customers.
Don’t expect the climate activists to back down quietly, though. They’ll likely push for new regulations to replace the ones being scrapped, and automakers will have to find other ways to meet emissions targets — hopefully without resorting to another half-baked gimmick. For now, drivers can look forward to a future where they won’t have to hit that “OFF” button every time they start their cars. It’s a small win, but in a world where common sense often takes a back seat to bureaucracy, it’s one worth celebrating.
What’s your take — have you been fed up with start/stop tech, or are you one of the few who actually liked it? Let us know in the comments below, and let’s keep the conversation going.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has taken it upon himself to shut down the National Environmental Museum and Education Center — a multimillion dollar Biden administration project built to showcase EPA achievements.
The museum, which also cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual maintenance costs, featured “historical and scientific artifacts, along with interactive displays that highlight environmental history events and EPA milestones.”
“I think we all knew this was going to be a catastrophe when it started,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” comments. “Basically, it is a super cheap-looking museum. It's kind of colorful, I guess, but it’s got a bunch of pictures of water and trees on the walls.”
“Then you have this next area, which is like a little seating area around three tiny monitors, where you can sit down and watch videos that likely repeat over and over again,” he continues, adding, “My understanding, too, is that they’re using energy here, which, of course, is killing the planet.”
Zeldin decided to shut down the museum after realizing it was “scarcely visited” and “cost a whopping $4 million taxpayer dollars to build in accordance with Smithsonian standards and more than $600,000 annually to operate.”
“Do your tax dollars really need to be going to museums?” Stu asks. “I kind of argue no, frankly, on that one. Maybe take some donations.”
“$600,000 is not a lot of money in government standards, but a lot of money coming from everyday people to go to a museum,” he continues, noting that the size of the museum was atrociously small for that kind of cost to the taxpayers.
“The museum itself is about the size of an apartment, barely 1,600 square feet, tucked inside the ground floor of EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. It had less than 2,000 external visitors between May 2024 and February 2025. That’s like nine months, 2,000 visitors,” he explains.
“To put that in perspective, even the lowest visited Smithsonian Museum has eight times the visitors in one year,” he adds, “So we’re spending $600,000 a year. We spent $4 million to build a one-room apartment.”
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The Trump administration appears serious about ridding American drinking water of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as "forever chemicals," and penalizing polluters.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Monday that his agency will be taking a suite of actions to address PFAS.
"We are tackling PFAS from all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers," Zeldin said in a statement. "This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water."
PFAS is a group of roughly 15,000 synthetic chemicals that have been in consumer products since the 1940s. The EPA noted on its website that PFAS "can be present in our water, soil, air, and food as well as in materials found in our homes or workplaces."
A 2015 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that PFAS were found in the blood of approximately 97% of Americans. A 2023 study released from the U.S. Geological Survey indicated PFAS were found in at least 45% of the country's tap water.
Citing the current peer-reviewed scientific literature, the EPA indicated that exposure to PFAS could lead to:
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, studies have also found possible links between PFAS and diminished immune systems, increased risk of childhood obesity, and increased risk of Type 2 diabetes in women.
The EPA has now committed to "strengthening the science, fulfilling statutory obligations and enhancing communication, and building partnerships."
'It's encouraging to see the support of the Trump EPA to express their concerns about PFAS.'
The agency will apparently take 21 actions to address PFAS contamination, such as:
John Rumpler, clean water director and senior attorney at the Environment America Research and Policy Center, expressed optimism Monday about the agency's proposed actions.
"Some of the initiatives announced by EPA could begin to advance Administrator Lee Zeldin's stated objective: 'to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water,'" stated Rumpler. "These include setting at least some limits on how much PFAS certain industries can release into our waterways, and using our nation's toxic substances law to restrict the use of these chemicals — hopefully in the strong manner that several states have already done."
"On face value, it's encouraging to see the support of the Trump EPA to express their concerns about PFAS," Linda Birnbaum, an American toxicologist who formerly served as director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, told Inside Climate News. "The question is always, what are the devils in the details."
Environmental and health experts are not the only ones cautiously hopeful about the EPA's next steps.
The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association for chemical companies, said in a statement obtained by Chemical and Engineering News, "While we need to learn more about the details of EPA's announcement, we have consistently advocated for a comprehensive approach to managing PFAS, including for the designation of a point person to coordinate across differing programs and agencies."
"We support strong, science-based regulations for PFAS chemistries that take into account the differences between them, continue to allow for the many products that they enable, and drive domestic manufacturing," added the ACC.
Although the EPA now appears to be largely picking up where the first Trump administration left off with its 2019 PFAS action plan — which called for improving methods and tools for managing PFAS risk, as well as greater enforcement — some notable efforts on this front were made by the Biden administration.
The agency established national, legally enforceable limits last year on PFAS in public drinking water in April 2024. The final EPA rule gave public water systems three years to complete initial monitoring for PFAS contamination. Those who discovered PFAS at levels in excess of federal standards were afforded another five years to reduce the amount.
Despite having years to comply with the April 2024 rule, water utilities and chemical producers filed suit, claiming the government was exceeding its authority in trying to remove dangerous chemicals from municipal water systems.
The New York Times reported that the Trump administration faces a May 12 deadline to decide whether it wants to mount a legal defense of the water standards.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that it would either fire or reassign 455 employees in an effort to eliminate the Biden administration's woke programs.
The EPA notified 280 employees that they would be terminated in a "reduction in force," Axios reported. Another 175 staffers responsible for "statutory functions" will be reassigned.
'Getting people back in the office is a priority now.'
Those impacted held "environmental justice" and diversity, equity, and inclusion roles in the agency's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, Office of Inclusive Excellence, and its regional offices.
An EPA spokesperson told Axios, "EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency."
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has accused the former administration of throwing away $20 billion in taxpayer funds on environmental justice initiatives.
"No matter how hard some try to circle the wagons to defend lighting billions of YOUR tax dollars on fire to be misspent in a $20 BILLION Green Slush Fund, I will not compromise on my ZERO tolerance policy against ANY waste and abuse!" he wrote in a Monday post on social media.
During a Monday press conference, Zeldin addressed efforts to streamline the agency and save taxpayer funds.
"When we came in, we inherited an operation that, for the most part, people weren't even here in the office. COVID-era remote work is over," he stated. "When I came in, I had asked the team, 'How much have employees been coming in since January of 2024?' And the answer is that on Mondays and Fridays, it averaged five to eight percent. The record high attendance was 37%."
"Getting people back in the office is a priority now," Zeldin declared, adding that returning workers to the office would allow the agency to make informed decisions about its real estate footprint.
Zeldin's EPA has already saved American taxpayers roughly $18 million by removing employees from the Ronald Reagan Building and consolidating its office space in Washington, D.C.
The EPA administrator has focused much of his attention this week on addressing the sewage flowing over the border from Mexico into California.
On Tuesday, Zeldin toured a San Diego County plant that treats the sewage from the polluted Tijuana River. He stated that the EPA plans to present Mexico with a list of actions to resolve the issue.
"This is not a U.S.-side answer. I wish that we could resolve this all on our own," Zeldin told KXTV. "There's a lot of needs on the Mexican side."
He said that he spoke with Mexican officials about "chemical treatment" and "diverting 10 million gallons per day from the Tijuana River to the dam."
"We want both sides to sit down and go project by project to talk about the timeline of everything and make sure that every single project is operating on the tightest timeline possible," he added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A federal judge ruled late Tuesday evening that the Environmental Protection Agency must immediately restart a $20 billion Biden-era green energy program that the Trump administration terminated last month, restarting the flow of taxpayer funds to eight environmentalist groups including one linked to Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams.
The post Obama-Appointed Judge Orders Trump Admin To Disburse $20B to Green Groups Including Stacey Abrams-Linked Org appeared first on .
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Monday announced the closure of the $4 million agency museum built by the Biden administration.
Zeldin referred to the one-room, 1,595-square-foot facility as one of former President Joe Biden's failed "pet projects," noting that during its nine months of operations, it saw fewer than 2,000 external visitors.
'The museum closure represents just one step in our broader commitment to transparency and fiscal responsibility.'
While admission was free to the public, he stated that each visitor cost taxpayers $315.
The museum is located at the EPA's Washington, D.C., headquarters and opened in May 2024. Despite its small size, the facility cost $4 million to open and costs another $600,000 annually.
Zeldin shared a video on X giving a tour of the museum and explaining the decision to shut it down.
He stated that a timeline featured in the museum "conveniently omits" President Donald Trump's first administration. A separate video showed a gap in the timeline between 2014 and 2021.
"This agency has been spending $123,000 on cleaning, $207,000 for security, $54,000 on maintenance, and an additional $54,000 on storage," Zeldin said. "From May 2024 through last month, only 1,909 members of the public visited the museum. Even though it is free admission, this museum costs you, the taxpayer, $315 per external visitor."
He described it as a "shrine to [environmental justice] and climate change."
"Under President Trump, we are ending the practice of burning tax dollars on pet projects," Zeldin declared.
In a Monday op-ed on Fox News, Zeldin stated that he has terminated Biden-era spending that will save taxpayers $22 billion.
Zeldin noted that the money allocated toward the "scarcely visited" museum could have been used by the Biden administration to provide "clean air, land, and water to forgotten communities."
"The museum closure represents just one step in our broader commitment to transparency and fiscal responsibility," Zeldin wrote. "This isn't about diminishing our commitment to environmental protection; it's about enhancing it through responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The days of unchecked spending on monuments to the egos of the left are over. Under our leadership, fiscal responsibility and mission focus will guide every decision. The American people deserve nothing less."
Additionally, Zeldin announced on Tuesday that the EPA would be moving out of its D.C. headquarters.
"EPA will be saving American taxpayers $18 MILLION in annual lease costs by moving staff out of the 323,000 square feet of space we occupy in the Ronald Reagan building in D.C.," he stated.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!