Trump’s EPA chief takes on geo-engineering: Lee Zeldin targets ‘playing God’ with weather control



Geo-engineering — the various processes by which the weather is intentionally altered — is a growing concern, not just here in America but across the globe. Many wonder if practices like cloud seeding, where silver iodide or dry ice is dispersed into clouds to induce precipitation, or solar radiation management, where aluminum oxides or sulfates are injected into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and reduce global temperatures, risks meddling with cosmic forces we can’t even begin to fully realize.

“Geo-engineering really scares me because it seems like we're starting to play God,” says Glenn Beck.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has historically been minimally involved in geo-engineering, leaving it up to private companies and researchers to experiment with delicate weather patterns that potentially impact the entire globe. Far more concerned with imposing strict regulations that stifle economic growth but do little to actually protect the environment, the EPA has largely ignored the growing list of consequences of geo-engineering – like acid rain, ozone depletion, and ecosystem disruption.

But that’s all changing under Trump EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin — a man Glenn says is “killing it.” He is taking charge of the agency in ways we’ve never seen before. Unlike former EPA chiefs, who had limited engagement with geo-engineering, Zeldin has prioritized transparency by launching new online resources to address public concerns about geo-engineering and contrails, while actively investigating private activities of geo-engineering companies.

“I agree with your concern just with the idea of playing God,” he told Glenn on a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“It's not like [geo-engineering] is thoroughly studied,” “approved,” “trusted,” or “vetted,” he says.

The vast majority of geo-engineering practices, he explains, are spearheaded by “people who just want to do it on their own,” so they lobby for “someone to hand over a billion dollars” so they can “go dump a whole bunch of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.”

“No, that doesn't sound good; it doesn’t sound right; and it shouldn’t happen,” says Zeldin.

Glenn remembers fearmongering about “global cooling” when he was a child. “There were these scientists that said, ‘We need to dump coal ash on the polar caps because that will attract the heat and stop the impending ice age that was coming,”’ he recounts. “Can you imagine if we had done that? What a stupid idea.”

Today, however, global warming is what the majority of “experts” fret about, and that’s what geo-engineering primarily aims to mitigate.

Except global warming — at least the assumption that the planet is catapulting towards combustion — has been proven overblown. Zeldin reflects on how countless predictions about the planet’s demise have failed to come true. “Six years ago, AOC was saying that in 12 years the planet was going to end. ... Six years later, obviously that's not going to happen,” he says.

The days of writing policy based on the doomsday predictions of “experts” are over under Zeldin’s EPA. The Obama administration’s Endangerment Finding that declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health, resulting in over $1 trillion spent on rigid and economically disastrous climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, is the shameful past Zeldin is moving away from.

“When you're talking about trillions of dollars of federal policy coming out, it should be something decided by Congress. There should be a debate and a vote of the elected representatives of the American people instead of some bureaucrat at some agency deciding to oppose trillions of dollars of regulation on their own,” he tells Glenn.

“In that 2009 Endangerment Finding, there were a whole bunch of different references to interpreting how the law doesn't prevent [agencies] from doing something, so therefore, they must be allowed to do it. That's not how I'm going to operate,” he vows. “I will just follow the plain reading, the plain text of the law, and if Congress wants to change the law, then we'll follow whatever that change is. That is our job.”

To hear more about what the EPA is doing under Zeldin’s leadership, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

23 Attorneys General Call On EPA To Defund Climate Lawfare Group

The attorneys general of 23 states sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Tuesday, asking that the agency cancel any grants to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The attorneys’ objections to federal grants for the ELI center on its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), which they claim “lobb[ies] judges in order to make […]

23 attorneys general call on EPA's Lee Zeldin to defund radical climate science institute



Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has been an instrumental figure in dismantling the climate science regime during the second Trump administration, including major funding cuts in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency. Now, nearly half of the states' attorneys general have called on Zeldin to strike at the head of another climate institution: the Environmental Law Institute.

Headed by Attorney General Austin Knudsen of Montana and signed by 22 other state AGs, the letter calls on Zeldin to cut funding grants for the Environmental Law Institute, which operates the Climate Judiciary Project.

'The Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call "neutral" education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system.'

The letter says that ELI "received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023 and 8.4% in 2024" from federal grants and appears to expect this funding to continue, according to its financial records.

RELATED: Trump targets 2009 EPA climate rule in bold regulatory shift

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans' tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country. The Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call 'neutral' education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system," Knudsen said in a statement obtained by Blaze News.

The Climate Judiciary Project, the letter continues, has a clear mission: "Lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts."

The Climate Judiciary Project claims it "is a first-of-its-kind effort that provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law. Since its creation in 2018, the Climate Judiciary Project estimates that it has hosted more than 50 events and trained more than 2,000 judges."

The revelations about ELI make clear that it is not shy about political lobbying.

Jason Isaac, the CEO of the American Energy Institute, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News: "Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education."

Many supporters of this move have cited legal and ethical concerns as well as issues with consumer protection. "As we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves. The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life," O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, said.

The letter was signed by the attorneys general of Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The signatories are calling on Zeldin to have the EPA "cancel any on-going grants to ELI and ensure that ELI does not receive any future grants while it is sponsoring the Climate Judiciary Project."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bernie Sanders is outraged that Trump ended $7 billion solar 'boondoggle' he passed under Biden



The Trump administration is celebrating saving $7 billion for taxpayers by ending solar subsidies, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont is incensed that a program he backed is ending.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin announced the closing down of the Solar for All program that had funneled federal funding to pay for residential solar projects. The program was passed during former President Joe Biden's term.

'Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous.'

"The bottom line is this: EPA no longer has the statutory authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive," Zeldin said in a statement on social media Thursday. "Today, the Trump EPA is announcing that we are ending Solar for All for good, saving US taxpayers ANOTHER $7 BILLION!"

Sanders had introduced the program in 2023 and said it was part of the effort to combat the "existential" threat of global climate change.

"I introduced the Solar for All program to slash electric bills for working families by up to 80% — putting money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel billionaires," wrote Sanders in a statement on his website.

"Now, Donald Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous," he added.

"Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs, and real action to address the existential threat of climate change," Sanders continued. "At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn’t just wrong — it’s absolutely insane."

RELATED: Los Angeles officials mercilessly ridiculed after celebrating 'La Sombrita' bus shades for race and gender equity

The program had spent only $53 million of the $7 billion allocated, according to a research firm. Critics of the decision claimed that the EPA had overstepped its authority.

"These grants are delivering billions of dollars of investment to red and blue states alike," said Solar Energy Industries Association Vice President Stephanie Bosh. "This administration is continuing to dig itself into a hole."

“Trump is — yet again — putting his fossil fuel megadonors first,” said Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who is on the Senate Environment Committee.

Sanders promised to fight to protect the program.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s EPA set to scrap Biden’s $1 trillion EV mandate



The Environmental Protection Agency has just set off what may be the most consequential policy shift in the auto industry in over a decade.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to rescind the controversial 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal foundation that has been used for 16 years to justify greenhouse gas emissions regulations impacting every car, truck, and bus sold in the U.S.

If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

If finalized, this proposal would dismantle more than $1 trillion in regulatory mandates, including President Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle requirements, and restore consumer choice to a market long constrained by unelected bureaucrats. It would also put the brakes on unpopular mandates like engine start-stop systems and costly EV infrastructure requirements that automakers say have driven up vehicle prices.

Why this proposal is so significant

The Endangerment Finding gave the EPA unprecedented power to regulate six greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It asserted that these gases — carbon dioxide among them — posed a threat to public health and welfare, opening the door for sweeping emissions mandates on the auto industry.

Since then, the EPA has used the finding to justify a series of regulations designed to force automakers toward electric vehicles and away from gasoline-powered cars. Biden’s 2024 standards, for example, require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions in half by 2032 and predict that between 35% and 56% of all new vehicles sold will be electric within the next decade.

California and 11 other states have piggybacked on these standards with even stricter rules, including outright bans on gasoline-only cars by 2035.

Critics say these mandates amount to a de facto EV requirement that Congress never approved. They also argue that the Endangerment Finding was based on flawed legal reasoning and exaggerated climate risk assumptions.

Under Obama and Biden, the EPA "twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year,” Zeldin said at the announcement, which was held at a truck dealership in Indiana.

$1 trillion at stake

According to EPA estimates, rescinding the Endangerment Finding would roll back regulations totaling more than $1 trillion in compliance costs. Automakers have spent years re-engineering vehicles to meet complex emissions targets, often passing those costs on to consumers.

The American Trucking Associations estimates that Biden’s electric truck mandate alone would have “crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses.” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear welcomed the EPA’s move.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R), who joined Zeldin at the event, echoed that sentiment: “We can protect our environment and support American jobs at the same time."

Legal foundations and next steps

The EPA argues that recent Supreme Court rulings — including West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo — make it clear that major regulatory decisions of this scale must come from Congress, not federal agencies. These decisions limit the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally impose sweeping economic mandates without explicit legislative approval.

Here’s what happens next.

Public comment period: The proposal is now open for public comment until September 21, 2025. Americans, automakers, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders can weigh in via regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194).

Final rulemaking: After reviewing comments, the EPA will finalize the rule. This process must also pass through the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval.

Legal challenges: Environmental groups and states like California are expected to sue, arguing that rescinding the Endangerment Finding violates the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

It’s likely the issue could end up before the Supreme Court again, prolonging uncertainty for automakers and consumers.

RELATED: $8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

What this means for you

If the proposal is finalized and withstands legal challenges, it would reshape the entire automotive landscape.

The end of Biden’s EV mandate: Automakers would no longer be forced to prioritize EV production at the expense of gasoline-powered vehicles.

Lower vehicle costs: With fewer costly compliance requirements, manufacturers could pass savings on to consumers.

Restored consumer choice: Drivers could decide for themselves whether they want to buy EVs, hybrids, or gasoline-powered vehicles.

The end of California's outsized influence: The EPA could revoke California’s ability to set stricter emissions rules than federal standards, affecting 11 other states that follow California’s lead.

However, the process will take time. Automakers must plan years in advance, and environmental groups and states are are expected to fight every step of the way.

How to make your voice heard

The public comment period gives everyday Americans a rare chance to influence federal policy. If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

You can submit your comments directly through the Federal eRulemaking Portal by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. Comments must be received by September 21, 2025.

The EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, with an additional session on August 21 if needed. Details are available on the agency’s website.

The bigger picture

This isn’t just about EVs. The Endangerment Finding has been the legal backbone for every major greenhouse gas rule in the last 16 years. Rolling it back would not only upend Biden’s climate agenda but also shift power back to Congress and the states.

Supporters of the rescission say it’s about restoring accountability. Opponents, however, argue that eliminating these regulations would stall progress on climate change and undermine the transition to cleaner technologies. They vow to fight the proposal in court.

This move by the EPA could fundamentally change the future of the auto industry and the vehicles available to American drivers. Whether you support or oppose it, this proposal deserves your attention. Over the next 45 days, the agency is accepting feedback from the public — and your input can help determine whether these costly and controversial mandates remain in place or are rolled back for good.

You have a voice in this process. Make sure it’s heard.

For more information and to view supporting documents, visit the EPA’s official docket page.

Trump EPA Moves To Rescind Obama-Era Legal Basis for Gas Car Regulations

The Trump EPA will unveil a landmark proposal to rescind the Obama-era legal basis that allows the federal government to regulate gas-powered vehicle emissions and enforce a de facto electric vehicle mandate.

The post Trump EPA Moves To Rescind Obama-Era Legal Basis for Gas Car Regulations appeared first on .

Serious people don’t sign manifestos with disappearing ink



The Information Age brought rapid technological progress and unprecedented access to knowledge. But one rule still holds true: Once it’s on the internet, it’s there forever.

Some EPA employees are now learning that the hard way.

If publicly attacking your boss gets you fired in the private sector, doing so in the executive branch should have the same consequences.

The signatories of the now-infamous “Stand Up for Science” declaration — an act of open defiance against the Trump administration — are scrambling to erase their names after their stunt blew up in their faces. The petition, framed as a principled stand, was nothing more than a petulant swipe at a duly confirmed administrator carrying out the people’s mandate.

Now, these federal workers want to duck the consequences and are trying to rewrite history.

Several employees placed on leave after signing the letter hope that removing their names from the petition will shield them from accountability. Even the union officials who likely helped draft the statement lacked the backbone to leave their signatures in place. It’s yet another reason federal employee unions clash with the idea of genuine public service.

But they’re too late.

We at Democracy Restored have preserved all 388 names tied to this attempted bureaucratic mutiny. The so-called resistance within the federal government won’t get to disappear just because their stunt failed.

Cosplaying courage

Signing a petition or manifesto should demonstrate conviction. It’s meant to show political courage and reputational risk — something closer to “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” than to anonymous internet whining. But when EPA employees try to quietly withdraw their signatures to avoid consequences, they reduce the entire effort to a farce. The petition becomes suspect, and its signers look unserious at best, cowardly at worst.

These federal workers don’t get to play both sides. They drew taxpayer salaries while inserting themselves into partisan fights, then tried to hide the evidence when the heat came. If they cared about science or the agency’s future, they wouldn’t have attempted to scrub their names. Their stunt revealed what they really wanted: to lash out at their boss — the American people — without accountability.

The “Stand Up for Science” campaign wasn’t just a case of weak knees. It was a condescending ploy by bureaucrats who think the public is too stupid to notice. They bet they’d get away with it. They lost.

In this age of performative outrage, maybe they thought their names didn’t matter. Maybe it’s enough that the letter existed, that the accommodating media publicized it, and that some guy in a bar may cite a declaration signed by hundreds of EPA employees as reason to vote against the president and his party.

They struck a blow for the revolution, with none of the messy personal blowback.

These individuals are cosplayers, seeking excitement by sticking it to the man. They are not a serious group of government officials or even serious grown-ups. An election didn’t go their way, so they’re acting out — or they were right up until the moment they realized their taxpayer-funded paychecks could be harmed.

Wiping the names from this petition illustrates that the hundreds of signatories are desperately vying for the attention and adoration of their political allies and like-minded friends. It also reveals the toxic culture of entitled partisanship that infects the public sector.

Zeldin called their bluff

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s action to address this matter was not only warranted, it was the correct response. By suspending the individuals who declared their intent to stand against the American people’s mandate to return scientific integrity to the federal government, Zeldin is taking the first steps to dismantle that culture.

If publicly attacking your boss gets you fired in the private sector, doing so in the executive branch should have the same consequences. Federal employees are not entitled to their jobs, and they’re certainly not entitled to perform them while extending a middle finger to the people who pay them.

RELATED: EPA moves to slash Obama-era gas can regulations: 'VENT THE DARN CAN'

Photo by Allison Joyce / Contributor via Getty Images

In all cases like this, the exemplars should be the signers of the Declaration of Independence (or perhaps that’s too grand a comparison for the EPA letter). The signers’ lives really were at stake, their fortunes hadn’t come from cushy civil service jobs, and they understood what “sacred honor” really meant. John Hancock is the greatest example of this: Not only did he sign his name first, but he signed it large, loud, and proud so that the British knew exactly who stood against them.

Where have you gone, John Hancock? Your spirit still lingers with some, but it’s clear that, for these signatories, that torch has gone out.

EPA moves to slash Obama-era gas can regulations: 'VENT THE DARN CAN'



Lawn and car guys are celebrating after Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin's latest push for deregulation.

Zeldin shared a letter Thursday encouraging manufacturers to "produce cans that best meet consumer needs," including gas cans "with vents to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow." This push comes in response to regulations previously implemented by former President Barack Obama in 2009 that removed vents in gas cans in order to reduce vapor emissions.

The vents originally prevented a vacuum from forming inside the gas can, allowing it to pour gasoline smoothly. Since the regulation was rolled out, consumers and retailers have expressed frustration with the new design, which often causes gasoline to spill.

'Pointless government regulations have ruined many commonsense products, and everyone knows it.'

"Gas cans used to POUR gas," Zeldin said in a Thursday post on X. "Now they just DRIBBLE like a child's sippy cup. The Trump EPA’s message to gas can makers: VENT THE DARN CAN and let it FLOW BABY FLOW!"

RELATED: Exclusive: Lawn and car guys will cheer after Chip Roy introduces bill slashing gas can regulations

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Phil Robertson, the late star of "Duck Dynasty," demonstrated the inefficiency of the EPA-compliant gas cans, mocking the regulations on the "dangerous piece of equipment."

"The safest gas can delivered on earth," Robertson said sarcastically as the gas slowly dripped out of the can. "Reminds me of my prostate last night. I'm just not getting the flow that I once had."

RELATED: Trump administration takes aim at Obama-era climate change regulations

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas has been leading the charge in the House with his Gas Can Freedom Act. Blaze News first reported Roy's bill in February, which aimed to "eliminate the unnecessary federal regulations that have made gas cans dysfunctional."

"Pointless government regulations have ruined many commonsense products, and everyone knows it," Roy told Blaze News in February. "The federal government does not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives, and we never needed them involved in our gas cans."

RELATED: Chip Roy reveals to Glenn Beck possible motive behind Elon Musk's scathing review of the 'big, beautiful bill'

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

As of now, no legislative actions have been taken on Roy's bill beyond its introduction in the House. Roy remains committed to the bill and is urging his colleagues to take up the legislation.

"Let's get it passed and cut these burdensome regulations FOREVER."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!