‘Separation of Powers’ Is The Judiciary’s Bogus Justification For Anti-Trump Lawfare
GOP’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill Act’ lets Big Tech and Big Pharma run wild
The Republicans’ bizarrely named “Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes two egregious provisions that would strip states of their power to regulate key agenda items pushed by globalist elites.
Anyone who still understands what the word “conservative” means can see the truth: The Republican budget bill is a mixed bag of deficit bloat, missed opportunities, and the odd policy win. Whether the House bill was worth passing as a “take it or leave it” deal depends on one’s political calculus. But the result is underwhelming and fails to rise to the moment.
Stripping states of authority and subsidizing green fantasies are the exact opposite of the anti-globalist message that won Trump the White House.
Supporters of the bill — particularly President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — argue that it’s the best possible outcome given a razor-thin House majority packed with RINOs from purple districts in blue states. Set aside that debate. If it’s true, then conservatives should focus their energies in deep-red states where Republicans hold supermajorities. That’s where we can — and must — do the work Congress won’t.
Instead, Republican leaders included two provisions in the bill that actively prevent red states from pushing back against green energy mandates, land-grabs, surveillance schemes, and a growing transhumanist agenda.
Green New Deal jam-down
Thanks to Republican Freedom Caucus stalwarts, including Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Chip Roy of Texas, much of the Green New Deal faces rollback — assuming, of course, the Senate doesn’t block the repeal. But one key subsidy survives: federal incentives for carbon capture pipelines. Worse still, the bill strengthens protections for these projects by stripping states of regulatory power.
Section 41006 spells it out: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grants a pipeline license under an newly amended section of the Natural Gas Act, state and local governments can no longer block or delay the project using zoning, permitting, or land-use laws.
In plain English: carbon dioxide pipelines, backed by federal subsidies, get the same privileges as oil and gas pipelines. That includes eminent domain powers and “certificate of public convenience and necessity” status — bureaucratic code for “we’ll take your land whether you like it or not.”
But carbon pipelines aren’t oil and gas. Oil fuels the economy and delivers a clear public good. Carbon capture, by contrast, sucks up CO2 and buries it to appease climate hysterics. It serves no market need and survives only through government handouts. It exists to sanctify the fiction that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
This isn’t an oversight. It’s a direct response to South Dakota ranchers, who successfully fought to ban eminent domain for carbon capture projects. Lawmakers in Iowa and North Dakota have followed suit, targeting Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed pipeline, which would have plowed through private ranchland to serve a project with no public value.
The rebellion in South Dakota ranks among the most important conservative grassroots victories in recent history. Yet this bill spits in the face of those landowners. It overrides red-state laws and rural rights on behalf of globalist, green-energy profiteers.
A 10-year pause on state bans
Funny how Republicans said budget reconciliation couldn’t include policy changes. That was the excuse for not pursuing immigration reform or judicial restructuring. And yet when it suits the priorities of Big Tech and globalist interests, lawmakers found a way to insert sweeping federal mandates into the bill.
Out of nowhere, either the White House or GOP lawmakers added a provision banning states from regulating artificial intelligence or data center systems. Section 43201 of the bill states: “No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.”
That’s not compromise. That’s total pre-emption — no exceptions.
Florida and other red states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of AI in enforcing gun control or violating medical privacy. More states are following suit. Legislatures across the country are debating how to safeguard civil liberties and property rights from tech overreach. But this bill would kneecap every one of those efforts.
Then come the AI data centers — massive, power-hungry, water-consuming facilities that are cropping up in rural areas and harming communities in their wake. Bipartisan state efforts aim to regulate them through zoning and environmental protections. Yet under this bill, Congress could override even the most basic local safeguards. If a township tries to limit where these centers operate or how they’re built, that could be viewed as “regulating AI systems” and thus outlawed for a decade.
Why does this matter? Because tech moguls aren’t hiding their intentions.
RELATED: The Republicans who could derail reconciliation
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images
At Trump’s January 22 launch event for Oracle’s Stargate platform, CEO Larry Ellison gushed about mRNA vaccines. “One of the most exciting things we’re working on ... is our cancer vaccine,” he said. “Using AI, we can detect cancers through blood tests and produce an mRNA vaccine robotically in about 48 hours.” That’s the model. AI plus big data plus biotech equals unregulated medical experimentation — powered by infrastructure no local government can block.
Red states have started pushing back, attempting to pass 10-year moratoriums on mRNA technology. But the federal budget bill would do the opposite: It could impose a 10-year federal moratorium on state bans.
So here’s the question: Do we really want Arab-funded special interests building AI spying centers in our heartland with no recourse for state and local governments to regulate, restrict, or place common-sense privacy guardrails on these new Towers of Babel?
That question raises another: Should localities be forced to accept carbon pipelines by federal decree, with no power to defend their land or water?
These policies — stripping states of authority, empowering transnational corporations, subsidizing green and biotech fantasies — are the exact opposite of the anti-globalist, America First message that won Trump the White House and won Republicans the House.
We deserve answers. Who inserted these provisions? And more urgently, who will take them out?
The real reason elites want to destroy Elon Musk
When protests erupt worldwide over an American staffing decision, it’s not outrage — it’s orchestration. And the people behind it don’t want you asking questions.
The recent wave of global protests against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, defies logic. Demonstrators have gathered outside Tesla showrooms worldwide, setting cars on fire and destroying lithium batteries. But what exactly are they protesting?
The protests are not about environmental concerns but about control.
Policy decisions can spark domestic outrage in the United States, but why are people in Germany, Sweden, or Ireland suddenly mobilizing against Musk? He is not pushing for global war or implementing trade tariffs that would impact European consumers. His involvement in U.S. government affairs concerns federal budgeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Why would anyone overseas care about this?
Historically, large-scale protests have erupted over issues like nuclear weapons, war, and climate change. Yet, no precedent exists for international demonstrations aimed at a domestic U.S. policy decision — particularly one centered on budget efficiency. So who benefits from this manufactured outrage?
Green hypocrisy
Tesla revolutionized the electric vehicle industry, making sustainable transportation mainstream. Musk developed solar panels, battery storage, and charging infrastructure — technologies environmentalists have long championed. Yet now, the same groups that once hailed electric vehicles as essential to combating climate change are actively working to cripple Tesla.
How does burning Tesla vehicles and terrorizing EV owners advance the fight against climate change?
This contradiction reveals a deeper issue. If climate change truly presents an existential crisis, why would activists seek to dismantle a company leading the charge in clean energy? The only logical explanation is that the protests are not about environmental concerns but control.
Musk’s real ‘threat’
Elon Musk faced little controversy when he pioneered electric vehicles or launched reusable rockets. The backlash began when he became a vocal champion of free speech.
His purchase of Twitter, followed by revelations of government-backed censorship, changed how information moves through digital platforms. That shift marked the moment the outrage machine targeted him.
Opponents have resorted to labeling Musk a "fascist." But let’s examine this claim. Traditional fascism is defined by state control, forced conformity, and the suppression of dissent. Musk, on the other hand, advocates open dialogue, transparency, and reduced government interference. Calling him a fascist is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to stifle debate.
When people misuse the term "fascist," they dilute its meaning. Just as overusing the word "racist" has numbed the public to actual instances of racism, the indiscriminate application of "fascist" shields actual authoritarian behavior from scrutiny. This tactic is not about accurately describing Musk — it is about silencing him.
Who’s behind the protests?
Ordinary citizens do not spontaneously organize coordinated protests across multiple continents in response to a U.S. federal staffing decision. These demonstrations require financial backing, media support, and strategic messaging. So who benefits from damaging Tesla’s brand or silencing Musk?
We live in an era where perception is power. A viral video can ruin a reputation, and a well-crafted narrative can influence elections. If a movement can turn a climate hero into a villain simply for challenging an entrenched system, then it can manipulate almost any public discourse.
Before accepting any narrative at face value, we must ask critical questions: Do these protests help or harm the environment? Are they organic expressions of outrage, or are they carefully orchestrated? Is the term "fascist" being used to expose truth or to suppress dissent? Most importantly, are we sabotaging progress simply because we dislike one of the people leading it?
The manufactured outrage against Musk is not about policy; it is about power. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk allowing those who seek control to redefine reality itself.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Complacency is killing the GOP — and Democrats are seizing the moment
The party’s over.
I hate being the bearer of bad news, but despite our historic victory this past November, the right hasn’t won the battle for America’s soul — not even close.
Republicans think Americans voted for right-wing philosophy, when in reality, they voted for Donald J. Trump. The two are not the same.
I get it — it’s been fun to be a Republican since November. The problem is, we’ve been so busy running victory lap after victory lap that now the left might lap us.
A warning from Pennsylvania
Just look at what happened this Tuesday, when Democrat James Malone won Pennsylvania’s 36th Senate District by a razor-thin margin. Just for context, this is a district that President Donald Trump won by 15 points in 2024 and whose electorate tilts Republican by 23 points. The last Republican to hold it ran unopposed. In short, it shouldn’t even have been close.
And yet the Democrat won, which raises a much more uncomfortable question, not just about this race but about the entire Republican strategy for 2026: How could this happen?
To me, the reason is clear. They won because we didn’t show up. Why didn’t we show up? We were lulled into a false sense of security by the crushing victory of 2024. And yes, Trump’s use of the full machinery of the state to strip away the left’s entrenched power — along with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency chewing through federal fat — makes it hard not to feel a bit giddy, even invincible. But while overconfidence breeds vulnerability, I don’t think that’s the real issue.
Trump won 2024, not ‘conservatism’
The real issue is that Republicans think Americans voted for right-wing philosophy, when in reality, they actually voted for Donald J. Trump. Whether you like it or not, Trump had an advantage that virtually no other Republican has: Everyone knew he was the living embodiment of a political approach that elites in bothparties had tried to stop. And what’s more, he was up against possibly the perfect candidate — or really, candidates — to personify what everyday Americans hatedabout those very elites. Plus, there truly is no one like Trump. It is only because so many people showed up to vote against those people — and for him — that they also pulled the lever for a Republican.
But most Democrats are not as bad as former Vice President Kamala Harris. And most Republicans, I’m sorry to say, are not Trump. In fact, most Republicans seem to have taken the exact wrong lesson from Trump’s victory. They’ve treated it as a vindication of conservatism. It wasn’t. Trump is not a movement conservative, and most Americans aren’t either.
Unfortunately, many GOP politicians still resemble the conservative brand of old. Worse, many have tried to use Trump’s “America First” agenda as a fig leaf for unpopular past stances and discredited old ideologies. This loud group has nothing to do with “America First,” and they’re making us look bad to normal Americans — precisely at the moment when everyone from Gavin Newsom to Bernie Sanders is falling all over themselves to try to appear “normal.” Americans voted for Trump to stop the ideological madness, not to invert it.
Time to wake up
But MAGA stands for more than that. We know it. Trump knows it. The real issue, as Trump himself often says, is that we’re not used to winning this much. And because of that, we’ve grown too comfortable. We’ve started coasting, assuming success will continue without effort.
We forget that many of our victories have come simply because voters oppose the radical left. As Mike Solana recently told Megyn Kelly, “We’ve decided what we don’t want to look like.” But rejection alone isn’t a strategy. If the opposition doesn’t implode, we have to give voters something to support — something real, clear, and positive. That requires more than deciding what we stand for; it requires showing it in everything we do.
Whatever that vision is, we need to define it now — and act on it — because time is running out.
We already lost a state Senate seat in a swing-state district with a Republican advantage of 23 points. If that can happen there, it can happen anywhere. The upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a toss-up, and we cannot afford another defeat.
Yes, both the MAGA movement and Elon Musk have done more to nationalize the Wisconsin court race than they did with Pennsylvania’s 36th Senate district. But we can’t rely on billionaires or once-in-a-generation political talent.
The right must build a political machine that works — whether we’re in power or not. Democrats have one. They’re using it. And they’re not slowing down.
We shouldn’t either.
Trump demands construction of Biden-canceled Keystone XL Pipeline — but confidence to build may require big changes
President Donald Trump suggested Monday evening that he wants the Keystone XL Pipeline, which former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden both sought to kill, built "NOW!"
"Our Country's doing really well, and today, I was just thinking, that the company building the Keystone XL Pipeline that was viciously jettisoned by the incompetent Biden Administration should come back to America, and get it built — NOW!" Trump wrote on Truth Social, roughly a month after telling the World Economic Forum that America does not need Canada's oil or gas.
Trump added, "I know they were treated very badly by Sleepy Joe Biden, but the Trump Administration is very different — Easy approvals, almost immediate start! If not them, perhaps another Pipeline Company. We want the Keystone XL Pipeline built!"
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith welcomed the idea, stating, "That project should never have been cancelled. Lower fuel costs for American families is a big win."
The premier of the adjacent prairie province of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, suggested that the pipeline, unlike the 10% tariff Trump has threatened to place on Canadian exports of crude oil, is a good idea.
"The path to continental energy dominance is to increase non-tariff North American trade," noted Moe. "This includes the construction of new pipelines like Keystone XL."
Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of the energy advocacy organization Power the Future, told Blaze News that Biden's 2021 revocation of TC Energy Corporation's cross-border permission to build the pipeline has so shaken confidence in the American government's willingness and ability to honor deals with the private sector that it will take more than an optimistic social media post to make things happen.
The proposed 1,179-mile Keystone XL Pipeline would have carried Canadian crude oil from the province of Alberta, which has the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, to Steele City, Nebraska, where an existing pipeline would route the profitable resource to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
The existing Keystone Pipeline System already sends over 590,000 barrels of crude oil daily to refineries in Illinois and Texas. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, the proposed KXL pipeline would increase the system's capacity to at least 830,000 barrels of oil per day, add several billion dollars to America's GDP, reduce American reliance on production from South American and Middle Eastern countries, and create tens of thousands of jobs.
To the delight of climate alarmists, former President Barack Obama rejected the project in 2015, refusing to grant the cross-border permit needed to proceed. Obama claimed at the time that the pipeline "would not serve the national interests of the United States," even though his own State Department admitted months earlier that the project would create about 42,000 jobs.
'He put the faith and credit of the United States government in question when it comes to these types of projects going forward.'
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, also a climate alarmist, did not appear too bent out of shape by the bad news.
While the Trudeau government convivially accepted the costly decree from south of the border, TC Energy launched a $15 billion lawsuit seeking compensation under NAFTA.
Upon taking office in 2017, Trump reversed the Obama administration's decision and gave TC Energy the green light to proceed, stating, "It's a great day for job and energy independence."
TC Energy quickly dropped its lawsuit.
In the two years that followed, development costs exceeded $1.5 billion.
Despite the billions of dollars invested, the guarantee of greater capacity, and the construction of 93 miles of pipeline, President Joe Biden killed the project within hours of taking his oath of office in 2021 — a decision the America First Policy Institute indicated deprived nearly 60,000 people of direct and indirect construction and engineering jobs.
Turner noted in a Tuesday article in the Federalist that the same Democratic politicians and liberal media outfits now bemoaning the Trump administration for firing scores of bureaucrats then celebrated Biden's elimination of tens of thousands of pipeline jobs.
After 12 years of runarounds from Democrats and activist judges stateside, TC Energy finally threw up its hands in June 2021 and officially canceled the project. Alberta later filed for damages, citing the Biden administration's alleged breach of Canadian-U.S. trade agreements.
Turner told Blaze News that Biden "didn't just stop a pipeline. He put the faith and credit of the United States government in question when it comes to these types of projects going forward. I can't blame the operators of Keystone or any other company who doesn't trust the American government now for anything that's going to take more than one presidential term."
There are, however, two possible fixes that could restore private sector companies' confidence, suggested Turner.
"One, they should figure out some sort of bonding mechanism where the government floats a bond for the equivalent construction costs, and they are willing to forfeit the bond if they withdraw their permissions," said Turner. "If you did something like that where the government said, 'Look, we'll sign this contract to set aside or to reimburse you if we change permission,' well now you tie the hands of the future president — you let the government know if they reverse course, there are financial hardships."
Accordingly, if a Democratic president harboring the same climate alarmist sensibilities as Obama and Biden were to take office in 2028, then such a bonding mechanism would protect companies and regional stakeholders from losing billions of dollars in a White House-canceled project as the TC Energy and Alberta had with the KXL.
Turner noted that another potential fix would entail Congress reclaiming the authority the U.S. State Department now wields over pipelines that cross borders.
"Congress can just reclaim that authority and say, 'You know, this is something for the Commerce Committee, something for Senate Committee on Foreign Relations," said Turner. "Congress can put in the legislative fix so that it is the American people, through their legislators, who approve such permits moving forward."
Without such fixes, Turner suggested the risk for companies of sinking billions of dollars into projects that an ideologue could unilaterally annul with the flick of a pen is simply not worth it.
"It's going to take more than just President Trump saying let's start it up again. It's going to take an act of government to guarantee people that this will not happen again," said the energy advocate.
Until then, "It's easier to build a refinery in Dubai or China. It's easier to open up in Venezuela or somewhere else — the North Sea."
Bloomberg reported that South Bow Corp., the oil business spun off from TC Energy, indicated it is not interested in a revival of the project, especially since key permits have expired.
A spokeswoman for the company said the company has "moved on from the Keystone XL project."
Blaze News reached out to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Biden bans most offshore drilling in one of his final acts of 'political revenge on the American people'
President Joe Biden evidenced his desire Monday to continue burning bridges and salting the earth on his way out of office, this time announcing a ban on all new offshore oil and gas drilling along the entire U.S. Atlantic coast and eastern Gulf of Mexico, as well as in Pacific waters off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington and in the Northern Bering Sea bordering Alaska.
While Biden has approved numerous offshore wind projects that not only can have a devastating impact on wildlife and the environment but generate a tremendous amount of pollution, the White House framed his decision to ban offshore drilling as a way to help "ensure our oceans and coasts are resilient to the threats of climate change and nature loss."
Biden's ban, executed under the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, applies to roughly 334 million acres of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf running down America's eastern flank from Canada to the southern tip of Florida; to 250 million acres of federal waters off the West Coast; and to 44 million acres of the Northern Bering Sea.
The White House suggested that Biden's unilateral decision to prevent Americans from taking advantage of the rich and internationally coveted resources under 625 million acres of U.S. ocean would not adversely impact the nation's energy needs.
"Drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation's energy needs. It is not worth the risks," Biden said in a statement. "As the climate crisis continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy, now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren."
'Drill, baby, drill.'
According to the White House, the deeply unpopular Democrat's decree "builds upon the Biden-Harris Administration's ambitious climate agenda and unprecedented commitment to protect America's natural wonders now and for future generations."
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act does not afford presidents the explicit authority to revoke such a ban and put federal waters back into development, reported CNN. Consequently, President-elect Donald Trump will likely need the Republican-controlled Congress to step up and change it before he can undo Biden's ban.
Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary for the incoming Trump White House, called the ban "a disgraceful decision to exact political revenge on the American people who gave President Trump a mandate to increase drilling and lower gas prices."
"Rest assured, Joe Biden will fail, and we will drill, baby, drill," added Leavitt.
'Their final act is to burn what is left to the ground.'
American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers blasted the move, stating, "American voters sent a clear message in support of domestic energy development, and yet the current administration is using its final days in office to cement a record of doing everything possible to restrict it."
"Congress and the incoming administration should fully leverage the nation's vast offshore resources as a critical source of affordable energy, government revenue, and stability around the world," continued Sommers. "We urge policymakers to use every tool at their disposal to reverse this politically motivated decision and restore a pro-American energy approach to federal leasing."
The API noted that "robust offshore oil and natural gas development could generate over $8 billion in additional government revenue by 2040."
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration data, roughly 14.5% of U.S. crude oil was produced in 2022 from wells located in federally leased waters off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and 0.1% was produced in federal waters off the coast of California.
The U.S. Oil and Gas Association noted on X, "Having fully looted the Treasury, divvied up the spoils amongst their friends — their final act is to burn what is left to the ground."
The offshore oil drilling ban is the latest in a series of controversial 11th-hour decisions on the part of Biden.
The 82-year-old Democrat also:
- undermined Trump's pursuit of peace in Ukraine and risked a shooting war with a nuclear power by authorizing the use of long-range American missiles against Russia;
- gave his felonious son Hunter Biden an "unconditional" blanket pardon and commuted the sentences of child-killers, fraudsters, and other degenerate convicts;
- rushed through DEI-satisfying judges;
- vetoeda bipartisan bill that would have created 66 new judicial seats in the coming years in understaffed federal courts across the country;
- set high-reaching greenhouse gas emission targets;
- gave the highest civilian honor to George Soros, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Cecile Richards, a woman who made millions of dollars at Planned Parenthood, an organization that helps snuff out millions of unborn American lives;
- gave the second-highest civilian honor to Jan. 6 committee leaders Liz Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson, as well as to former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac favorite who was credibly accused of sexually assaulting a waitress with Ted Kennedy in 1985; and
- took steps to "Trump-proof" the federal bureaucracy.
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 pick may be a nail in the coffin of federal climate alarmism
President-elect Donald Trump announced Monday that he will appoint former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin (R) to run the Environmental Protection Agency. With Zeldin at the helm, the EPA will likely drop its climate alarmist outlook, maintain meaningful environmental standards, and get out of the way of American innovation.
"Lee, with a very strong legal background, has been a true fighter for America First policies," Trump said in a statement. "He will ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American businesses, while at the same time maintaining the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet."
Trump noted further that Zeldin will "set new standards on environmental review and maintenance that will allow the United States to grow in a healthy and well-structured way."
Zeldin, who came within seven points of winning the 2022 New York gubernatorial race, noted, "It is an honor to join President Trump's Cabinet as EPA Administrator. We will restore US Energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water."
'This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy.'
As EPA administrator, Zeldin will be positioned to help execute Trump's Agenda47, which calls for the end to "all Joe Biden policies that distort energy markets, limit consumer choice, and drive up costs on consumers, including insane wind subsidies, and DoE and EPA regulations that prevent Americans from buying incandescent lightbulbs, gas stoves, quality dishwashers and shower heads, and much more."
Trump has vowed to work to ensure America has the lowest energy cost of any industrial nation, to terminate President Joe Biden's electric vehicle mandate, and to resume focusing on concrete environmental issues as opposed to the abstract threat of anthropogenic climate change.
Zeldin has a record to beat: In Trump's first term, the Republican administration axed nearly 100 regulations, primarily at the EPA, and dropped climate alarmism like a bad habit, going so far as to scrap the agency's web page on climate change — enraging climate activists and other leftists.
"This is a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections," Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard's Environmental and Energy Law Program, told the New York times after Trump's first term. "This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy."
Zeldin, poised to help Trump undo another Democratic administration's handiwork, told Fox News Monday, "One of the biggest issues for so many Americans was the economy, and the president was talking about unleashing economic prosperity. Through the EPA, we have the ability to pursue energy dominance, to be able to make the United States the artificial intelligence capital of the world, to bring back American jobs to the auto industry, and so much more."
Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, the activist outfit that launched over 300 lawsuits against the first Trump administration in hopes of preventing it from executing the people's will, said in a statement Monday, "Naming an unqualified, anti-American worker who opposes efforts to safeguard our clean air and water lays bare Donald Trump's intentions to, once again, sell our health, our communities, our jobs, and our future out to corporate polluters."
Jealous and other alarmists tend to gloss over the former congressman's long-standing support for various conservation efforts.
Politico noted that Zeldin has supported geographical watershed programs, including cleanup in the Great Lakes, as well as clamping down on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as "forever chemicals." Zeldin also co-sponsored the Carbon Capture Improvement Act to advance carbon capture technology.
Myron Ebell, who led Trump's EPA transition team in 2016, told E&ENews, "I think he has all the ability and political savvy to be a great deregulator."
"I think he's capable of mastering the technical side of it, but he also will be a great advocate in public for what they’re trying to do," added Ebell.
Former Trump EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler congratulated Zeldin, suggesting, "He will do a great job tackling the regulatory overreach while protecting our air and water."
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) tweeted, "Lee Zeldin is a swamp drainer! Perfect choice for EPA."
In the first 100 days, Zeldin indicated the EPA will "advance America First policies" and roll back "regulations that the left wing of this country have been advocating through regulatory power that ends up causing businesses to go in the wrong direction."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
FACT CHECK: Did Pacific Gas & Electric Company ‘Shut Off Power In Republican Areas’ In California On Election Day?
A viral post shared on X claims Pacific Gas & Electric Company purportedly shut off power in Republican areas in California on Election Day. 🚨#BREAKING: THEY SHUT OFF THE POWER ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS Pacific Gas & Electric in California has shut off power in several “Republican” areas ⚠️“PLANNED POWER OUTAGE” ⚠️ Why would PG&E cut […]
Government Wants To Ban Everything That Helps Keep Humans Alive
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories