Glenn Beck (3:16)

Lee, or I should call you administrator. Welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

Lee Zeldin (3:21)

Great to be with you.

Glenn Beck (3:22)

Yeah, I am. I think you're killing it. I think you're just killing it. And you are probably, to the left, one of the most hated men. You have to be. Because I look at the EPA not as really environmental protection. I see it as the way the left has built a tool to destroy hopes and dreams and just crush business and everything else in America. I see it more of a tool of destruction than anything that protects the environment.

Lee Zeldin (3:56)

Well, we've made this choice. We believe that you can protect the environment and grow the economy. That sounds like a really wild concept. That's something that the conservatives believe strongly. There was this belief at the agency in the last administration that we had to choose between the two. In order to protect the environment, we would have to, you know, strangulate the economy. And there were these rules, regulations that were coming in, especially in 2023 and 2024, trying to obliterate the coal industry to move towards the electric vehicle mandate to impose costs on Americans that they can't afford. And we also put a lot of weight in the law, following the law, not trying to get creative, where you see vague language in a law that you could just say, well, I guess that means that we're allowed to do it because the law doesn't say we can't. And the Supreme Court, in a decision called Loperbright, which I'm sure you're familiar with, overturning the Chevron doctrine, made it very clear that agencies like the EPA can't take that liberty of just trying to come up with trillions of dollars of regulations based off of language that doesn't even exist in statute.

Glenn Beck (5:11)

Yeah, that was a great ruling. Now, if we can just get rid of the. The commerce clause, I think we would be set. I want to get into all of this and the endangerment finding and everything. But can we start on the. I originally reached out to you because I don't know what to think about cloud seeding and chemtrails and geoengineering. And as a. As a casual watcher of this you know, when they said all the, you know, in Texas, it was all cloud seeding. I talked to the guy who was actually doing the cloud seeding, and the way he explained it, there's just no way that that's what caused that. And I just, you know, I don't even know if that can be done to cause something like that. Maybe it can. I know China is doing all kinds of cloud seeding and geoengineering. Geoengineering really scares me because it seems like we're starting to play God a bit. And I see the videos of chemtrails, you know, that are coming out, and I think this is part of geoengineering. You know, the farmers over in England are saying, look at the skies. And now it's going to be cloudy in 30 minutes. And it's cloudy and. And, you know, they were having all kinds of problems. Can you tell me what's true and what's not?

Lee Zeldin (6:28)

So when I first got confirmed, I sat down here at the agency with. With people and told them everything that I can know, everything that this agency knows about these topics. I want us to communicate with the public. Everything that I know as the EPA administrator should be communicated transparently with the American public. Whatever the answer is, wherever the facts lie, we posted last month on The EPA website, epa.gov geoengineering a lot of the answers I received on this topic, and there has been government funding that's gone towards some of these efforts. There are entities and people who would want to drastically scale these activities up. I agree with you with your concern, just with the idea of playing God. The solar radiation modifications, stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening. There are these activities to make changes to the stratosphere or the lower atmosphere and try to deflect sun rays from hitting the earth to instead send it back into space. And, you know, in the case of stratospheric aerosol injection, you're talking about putting sulfur dioxide, a lot of it, for a long time, into the upper atmosphere, which, by the way, turns into acid rain. There are real health concerns with regards to these activities. And it's not like, you know, it's thoroughly studied, it's approved, it's trusted, you know, it's vetted. Instead, you have people who just want to do it on their own, like try to get themselves, you know, someone to hand over a billion dollars to just go dump a whole bunch of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and. No, that. That doesn't sound. That doesn't sound Good. It doesn't sound right and it shouldn't happen.

Glenn Beck (8:32)

No, no, it doesn't sound. You know, I always, I come back to when I was a kid, they were worried about global cooling and there were these scientists that said we need to dump coal ash on the, on the polar caps because that will attract the heat and stop the impending ice age that was coming. Can you imagine if we had done that? What a stupid idea. There are just some things that, you know, we're, we're getting so powerful and we, we're just thinking that we are all powerful and that we have all the answers, that when we make mistakes on stuff like this now the whole world will pay for it. That's not good.

Lee Zeldin (9:15)

Yeah. And yeah, the consequences, as you point out, are grave. And that's why there's been concern by Americans of international activ. Even if the United States doesn't allow geoengineering, weather modification. But we're reading about activities going on in Europe or Asia. That same concern that you just expressed. If we do it over the U.S. americans have that concern if it's done over other continents elsewhere. So this is an international conversation in a way, because what other countries decide to do impacts Americans.

Glenn Beck (9:53)

And that to me is a logical use of the epa. You know, something that is, you know, you're, we're, we're doing things that you just don't, you have no idea what you're doing at this point. That's something where the government should come in and work with other governments around and say, hey, let's not do that. At least until we know exactly what we're doing and that we all agree that this is the best idea, the experiments with the globe, especially when it comes to global warming. I mean, are we ever going to put that one to bed? Is that ever going to go away or we still going to just keep lying? That what I learned in school, actually the trees breathe and then they breathe out oxygen and we, you know, we're CO2, that it's what makes trees grow. We ever going to get back to that truth?

Lee Zeldin (10:45)

I think it's based off of. It really comes down to getting to that moment in the future. Like now we're in 2025, where you can go back to predictions from 5, 10, 20 years ago where people were giving their pessimistic assumption of where science is going. Once you get to that date in the future, you're able to look back and say, okay, these are the facts. Now that we have the data, this is what bared out to be true. This is what wasn't so six years ago, AOC was saying that in 12 years the planet was going to end. You know, it seems more and more clear now six years later that obviously that's not going to happen. But you know, in some cases when trying to institute policies today, they're not just saying this is what's going to happen five or ten years from now. They'll say this is what's going to happen 80 years from now. And they pick a date that is so far into the future that it will justify the tens of billions, hundreds of billions, or were many trillions of dollars of policy, the restriction of consumer choice, the impact on quality of life and cost of living. And, you know, you have to wait 80 years to figure out whether it's true or not. You know, you referenced earlier the 2009 endangerment finding. This was the beginning of the Obama administration and they were. They had a choice. They could rely on pessimistic predictions of what was where things were going with the science. They could have relied on optimistic assumptions that were being made as far as where the science was going. And they chose to rely on the pessimistic predictions. Well, the great news now we're in 2025. We've seen that many of the pessimistic predictions didn't actually end up panning out. So we could deal with 2025 facts as opposed to 2009 bad assumptions. That's a good thing.

Glenn Beck (12:42)

Can you explain that, that endangerment finding and how important that was? I mean, that created a whole new industry, really. I think for the EPA this ended.

Lee Zeldin (12:55)

Up resulting in trillions of dollars of regulation. What the Obama administration did was that they said carbon dioxide when mixed with a bunch of other, well, mixed gases, the greenhouse gases some not even admitted from vehicles, even though the endangerment finding was only with regards to vehicles. They say that that ends up contributing to global climate change. They don't say causes, they say contributes. You might ask how much did they say contributes to it? They don't say, but we know that somewhere north of zero, not much more north of zero. And then they say global climate change endangers public health and welfare. It's an extraordinarily creative reading of section 202 of the Clean Air act, where they were doing things the EPA had never done before, like for example, justifying this as combating global climate change or relying on certain emissions that aren't even coming out of vehicles and not drawing direct links, instead doing these mental leaps and what they ended up doing was creating this new power that allowed them to do trillions of dollars of regulation, not just on vehicles, mobile sources, but also stationary sources like power plants and more. So it ended up leading to a lot. But we were just talking a few minutes ago about the Loperbright decision by the Supreme Court. There were also Supreme Court decisions in West Virginia versus epa, in Michigan versus EPA and other cases. And there's something called the major policy doctrine. There's this principle that 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.

Glenn Beck (14:52)

I will tell you that, you know, when you know, because I don't know what the. What the correct term to address people like you is, and I was told it was administrator. And I'm like, ooh. Because that goes right directly to Woodrow Wilson's favorite book. He read it three times while he was in office, and it was called Philip Drew Administrator. And it outlined that Congress was just too ineffective, too slow, and they didn't have all the knowledge. All you needed to do was get an expert in each of these fields, like the epa. It wasn't in existence yet, but you'd get an expert and you'd make him the administrator. And Congress just wouldn't pass any more laws. They'd become irrelevant, and it would just be, you know, a group of people who just knew, and they would make all of the rules. And that is damn near what we have done.

Lee Zeldin (15:46)

Yeah. And really, it's a principle that doesn't belong in this country. We should have that debate. We should have that vote. And if the will of the people ends up resulting in there not being enough votes to change statute, then so be it. We are going to follow our obligations under the law. Period. You know, in that 2009 endangerment finding, there were. There were a whole bunch of different references to interpreting how the law doesn't prevent them from doing something, so therefore they must be allowed to do it. That's not how I'm going to operate. 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 here at epa. We do a lot of really good, important things. We inherited a big challenge at the start of the Trump administration. The Los Angeles wildfires ended up destroying over 13,000 properties. There were a thousand lithium. There were the electric vehicles and the battery storage sites. We completed our hazardous material removal effort in less than 30 days that a lot of folks said was going to be impossible to meet. But we did it. We just entered into an agreement with Mexico on behalf of the Trump administration to have a permanent 100% solution to that Tijuana raw sewage crisis where millions of Americans in Southern California are dealing with all this raw sewage coming in from Tijuana, Mexico. There are a lot of brownfield sites and Superfund sites all across the country that are getting revitalized. And that's all good. But here's the problem is that on the funding side, over the course of the prior four years, they passed tens of billions of dollars through this agency that was so much money, the agency didn't even know how to spend it. And they'll use these words and terms to build support like environmental justice. And they'll say that there's communities that have been left behind that need help. And we'll say, yeah, okay, there's a community that's been left behind that needs help. What can we do to help? But then under that banner, under that term, they will then get tens of billions of dollars passed through their friends. And then through self dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, deliberately reduced agency oversight money will end up going through these pass throughs, through pass throughs, through pass throughs. You have people getting rich. The President has spoken about the example of that Stacey Abrams linked NGO. That's 2 billion of 20 billion that went through an outside bank where they got $100 in 2023 and then they get $2 billion in 2024. And the last thing I'll say on this is that there's just been so many different grants where the dollar ends up going to an activist group on the left to tell us the next dollar should be going towards remediating an environmental issue. So you get a dollar appropriated to remediate an environmental issue, but instead of spending the dollar on actually fixing the issue, the dollar's going to some left wing activist group to tell us that the next dollar should go towards fixing it. And we're not here saying, hey, let's take money from left wing activist groups and give them the right wing activist groups. We're saying that there should be a zero tolerance policy for any waste and abuse. And that's why we have now canceled over $29 billion worth of grants three times the size of EPA's annual operating budget. It is our duty to be an exceptional steward to the taxpayer and cut off all the BS that has been using these words, these terms, abusing power and causing extreme economic pain on this country.

Glenn Beck (19:44)

Children are a gift from God. We know that. And every day, unfortunately, thousands of women across our nation are facing unplanned pregnancies with nowhere to turn because they feel absolutely alone. Everybody in their life is saying, kill it. You know, it's not really a baby. It's not really a child. Right now, nearly one in four pregnancies end in abortion. That's 3,000 lost every single day. And 3,000 moms lost every day. But through preborn and the network clinics, there is hope. And these clinics provide free ultrasounds that introduce a mom to her baby. And that moment changes everything. Over 350,000 babies have been sold. No, not sold. 350,000 babies have been saved through this life giving work. And it doesn't stop there. Moms are being introduced to Christ, receiving practical support for up to two years and, and they're choosing life Moms like Valeria who just thought she didn't deserve to have a child until she searched, you know, her options and she went into a preborn network clinic. She now has a beautiful daughter who is already spreading life to others. It's amazing. Every day this is happening and it's why your monthly support is so critical. Just $28 a month can save a life, restore a precious gift from God. Dial pound250, say the keyword baby. That's pound250, keyword baby. Or go to preborn.com glenn preborn.com GL.

Mint Mobile Advertiser (21:09)

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try.

Relief Factor Advertiser (21:29)

@Mintmobile.Com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan. $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Glenn Beck (21:41)

Well that's, you know, I mean, that's why I think you're just knocking it out of the park. But it also makes you an enemy of almost everybody. I mean, you have, how many employees does the EPA have? They should say something.

Lee Zeldin (21:52)

So when we came in, the agency was at 16,155. We've been going through reorganizations, reductions in force. We're going down to 12 and a half. So over the course of the first six months, we were able to reduce the size by 23%, which, aside from the over $29 billion of grants that we canceled, that's $750 million of annual savings to the taxpayer. And they were also doing real estate consolidations. We closed an EPA museum that nobody went to that cost a lot of money. We're canceling media subscriptions that were overpriced. There's just a lot of ways to save money.

Glenn Beck (22:33)

But you're making enemies. I've heard that there are 400 of your own employees that have turned and wrote, you know, some scathing letter about, you know, how you're the Antichrist or whatever and how you're going to kill the environment, how, what is it like to be you, to walk into an agency where you're, you're, you're not the most popular?

Lee Zeldin (22:57)

So here's the, here's the great news. I would say that a large majority of the employees, a very large majority of the employees I've interacted with and I engage with the career employees every day here at headquarters. I've been to 30 states, so I've engaged with EPA across all 10 of our regions. And they get it. You do a career inside of a federal agency, 20, 30, 40 years, and you'll have very different presidents from one administration to the next. Sometimes it's a president you voted for, sometimes it's not to the point that you just raised. We also have exceptions, and in this case, we had a letter that was drafted where agency employees, using their title written as agency employees, were providing their own very public opinion of where the agency should go on policy, ignoring the will of the American public. There's a reason why President Trump is now in the Oval Office, that I'm here in this position after being confirmed by the Senate. You can't, as an employee in an agency doing a 20, 30, 40 year career, just always insist that whatever the policy and ideology is of the furthest left president you support over the course of your term, that whatever they want during those four, eight years, whatever they're pursuing is treated, you know, etched in stone like it's a commandment. The pendulum will swing because the American public voted for it. The American public doesn't want an electric vehicle mandate. They don't want the coal plants to be shut. They want more. They want energy dominance unleashed here in America, they want to be able to create jobs. They want us to be cognizant of their concerns. You know, I was just yesterday down in Georgia with the vice President announcing a change that we're making regarding refrigerants and this conversion with hfcs, that's been, that was done very drastic. Well, you go ask, you know, the grocery store costs have gone up. It's harmed the semiconductor industry. Residents are upset when we take action to stop that really annoying start stop feature on cars or to make gas cans flow faster or to reverse the annoying, the terribly flawed deratements on diesel exhaust fluid systems or getting water flowing faster. There are Americans out there like none of that matters. Why are you focusing on these little things? Well, maybe it doesn't matter to you, but each of those things I just mentioned matter to millions of Americans. And there's no issue that's too small, there's no issue that's too large. We will do. I mean what we were just talking about, the endangerment finding is the largest deregulatory action, the single greatest, the single greatest deregulatory action in the history of the United States of America collectively. All of the deregulation that we will do in one year is more deregulation in one year than entire federal governments, across entire agencies, across entire presidencies. And we want to, we want to get it right. We're going out to public comment. We're not saying, you know, to the point you just referenced from that book, you know, we're not saying, you know, in this perch that we know best. We want to go to the public, solicit your comments, participate in the process and we want to get it right at the end. But what we're putting out for proposal right now are many dozens of different decisions that would end up resulting in the largest deregulatory action in the history of the country. And we're proud of it because we're heeding those economic concerns, choosing both, yes, protecting the environment and growing the economy.

Glenn Beck (26:50)

So we haven't built a new refinery in America I think since the 70s because of all the regulations. They were shutting down all these coal plants. We, it's impossible to build a new nuclear reactor. Our grid system is, you know, just hanging by its by a thread. And we're at the same time saying that we want to be the AI leader. China is building all of those things. Every week there's a new poll, new coal fire power plant coming on and the one who wins is the one who's going to Be able to create the energy and create the energy safely I might add so we don't hurt the environment. But you're taking what regulations are coming off of coal and drilling and mining and and nuclear. How fast would we turn this around?

Lee Zeldin (27:49)

Right away this year on March 12th we announced over 30 different deregulatory actions proposals. We were sending out press releases once every five minutes. Bill Weir, the chief climate correspondent at CNN was on Kaitlan Collins show that evening criticizing us for announcing too much too quickly in his opinion. And to make the point they put up a press release of one of our proposals on a regulation called quad obc. And he puts it up and says look, they were going so quickly they didn't even proofread their press release. Look at this press release. It says at the top.0000 b c not even knowing what this major regulation is. The quad OBC regulation on the oil and gas industry and methane. We need more baseload power. We need more coal. We need nuclear. We should be transporting natural gas. Whether it's the LNG proposal for Alaska next to the Trans Alaska pipeline. It's the Constitution pipeline to deliver natural gas from Pennsylvania through New York into New England. The Nessie pipeline into New York. There's a proposal in the southwest part of the United States to transport natural gas. So that announcement from March 12th included a lot of it. But the media on the left has just been so dishonest about it. Listen, if you want to oppose what we are putting forth that's fine. I mean let's have that conversation. But just be honest about it. When we put out the endangerment finding proposal they like to put these photos of these scary looking smokestacks from coal power plants. The proposal was with regards to mobile sources. The scary looking sMoKestacks are over 99% coming from water vapor. We're not even. That wasn't even a proposal. Anything new. Coal plants like you show pictures of vehicles but by the way you can't show the picture of anything coming from the vehicle because what we're talking about with carbon dioxide that you can't see it. Just be honest with this conversation. So we proposed getting rid of the 2024 mercury and air toxic standards from the Biden EPA. A proposal to try to get rid of the entire coal industry essentially. So the left wing media wants to say look, they want to get rid of mercury and air toxic standards. No, if you get rid of the 2024 Mercury nanotoxic standards we still have the 2020. The 2012 Mercury, narotoxic standards, there still will be mercury and toxic standards on the books. We just don't want to be eliminating the coal industry with these regulations. And just unfortunately you have people in Congress, in the media and elsewhere who just don't want to engage in a fact based discussion on what the right policy is. And if you can't win the debate based on facts, if you have to lie and deceive, well, I mean, I would just say you probably lost the argument before he even started.

Glenn Beck (31:06)

So you have these people arguing this and trying to put out coal and everything else, which, you know, if we would have followed the plan of Joe Biden by 2030, most likely we would begin to have such rolling blackouts and brownouts that, you know, you can't build a first world nation if you don't have reliable energy. I'm broadcasting here from my mountain house in Idaho and there's no power poles coming in here, so I've had to bring all of the electricity in myself with solar, which is ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. I've spent into seven figures to have renewable power. And you just can't do it on a big scale. It's just not possible to do it unless you have generators and natural gas and everything else. And for people to think that we can just get off of coal and get off of, you know, everything and increase the amount we need for AI, it's just not going to happen. Are they anti human or do they just not know what they're talking about?

Lee Zeldin (32:21)

I think first off, we have to win this race on AI. There are people who want us to hit the brakes. It'd be harder to catch up later than just winning this race. Right now we need more baseload power in order to win it. One of the other proposals was a proposal that we put out to eliminate something that was called clean Power Plan 2.0. They're very good at coming up with nice names, but they are. The Supreme Court already overturned clean Power Plan 1.0 from President Obama's term in office. And now we're taking action with regards to clean Power Plan 2.0. We get our power from statute. Now you're referencing solar. The President often talks wind. These are intermittent sources of energy. And you have governors. I'm from New York where the governor talks about intermittent. The state is talking about these intermittent sources as if it's a substitute for baseload power. New York doesn't allow the extraction of natural gas. They won't approve new pipelines. They won't allow gas hookups for new construction. They're trying to ban the sale of gas powered vehicles. And then they've set these climate target dates that they know that they will not hit. But trying to hit it. They will cause extreme pain, including as you pointed out, those rolling blackouts and brownouts. So it's just bad policy. And then they'll say they'll talk about the intermittent source as if it is a substitute for baseload power. And the last thing I just want to say real quick, you know, a couple of weeks ago I was with the President. We're in Pittsburgh. It was the AI summit, $92 billion getting announced for the Keystone State in Pennsylvania. And I'm sitting there listening to it thinking this entire announcement, 100 billion, 200 billion could be getting announced for a state like New York. But because of the policies coming out of that state capitol, the investment is not being made. But fortunately the investment into the trillions is being made elsewhere around this country.

Glenn Beck (34:28)

I want to talk to you about pain. So many people are living with everyday pain and they just think they're stuck with, you know, that's just the way it is. But it doesn't have to be. Let me tell you about Stanley and his relief factor story. Stanley had seen TV ads for a relief factor more times than he could count. But for some reason, you know, he was just like, I'm not gonna try it. But his leg and back pain won out. So he gave in. He ordered it. After one week of taking relief factor, his pain eased up dramatically. Even started sleeping better. Now Stanley says stuff is incredible. And of course he wishes he would have started it sooner. If you're living with aches and pains, see how relief factor, a drug free daily supplement can help you live and feel better. Just like Stanley, just like me. Every day. Give their three week quick start a try. It's only $19.95. In a few weeks, even a few days, you'll feel the difference that relief factor can make. Don't feel stuck living with pain. Visit relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. That's 800, the number four relief.

Joe from Vanta (35:25)

Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI automation and continuous monitoring out there. So whether you're a startup going for your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta makes it quick Easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get started@vanta.com.

Glenn Beck (35:55)

So how, when we, I've got so many questions on this. Let me, let me start with this. It really bothers me that we've never been able to even talk about nuclear energy. I've been a fan of nuclear energy forever. It's the cleanest, it's the safest form of energy man has ever, ever done. It's 100% reliable. It is baseload power. It works in France. So why we can't do it here? And you know, the coal plants, the nuclear power plants, any kind of plant to create energy for people was just a no go zone. But all of a sudden Silicon Valley says, do you know how much energy we need for the, for the AI plants? And all of a sudden, oh, you don't hear anything from the left. Oh, they're, they're fine. Well, we got to do this. All the people that have been preaching this to us now, now that Silicon Valley needs that power now, it's okay, we have to do it. And I know it comes from the left and the right on this, but at least the right is consistent. We've never had a problem with these things. How, how do we, when do we break ground on some of these power plants like nuclear energy and when can we turn them on, do you think?

Lee Zeldin (37:13)

Yeah, I mean, there have been so many announcements that have been made since President Trump was sworn in in January of these massive, not just multi billion or tens of billions in some case hundreds of billions of dollars that companies are investing. They want to, many of them want to have data centers powering their own site. Some are talking small with nuclear. You have states and others talking about going big with nuclear. Here's the message from the Trump epa. We want to get this stuff approved and we want to get approved as quickly as possible. We have the power to gum up the works. We also have the power to get things fast tracked. We can help with permitting, we can help with cooperative federalism. We want to work with states and local governments. We can assist with siting, including on top of Superfund sites and brownfield sites. There's so many ways that the EPA can help. You've had these announcements that have been made into the trillions of dollars of all these companies that want to make the investment. We are here to help. President Trump, during the conference, during his transition was at the New York Stock Exchange ringing the opening bell. And he said, when lis is before, I was confirmed. This is before he was sworn back in. He said, when Lee Zeldin's the administrative epa, he will approve all requests for new nuclear sites within one week. And so we start getting these, we start getting these media requests in right away. I was with the president for the whole day. The first request comes in, very serious questions wanting to know how we're going to approve new nuclear sites in one week. And the president, he was volunteering there as communications director for a minute. He says, remind them that I was kidding around when I said one week. And tell them you'll get it done. Tell them you'll get it done in two weeks. The point is we are going to move as fast as humanly possible. And then the other piece that's helping to get this stuff done as quickly is as we can, is that President Trump created a National Energy Dominance Council chaired by Doug Burgum, Secretary of Interior. Vice chair is Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy. You have Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. Multiple agencies working together. And instead of each of us being siloed off, we're all working together, agencies working together at once to make the process as efficient as we can. So that someone who wants to invest and they're seeking a permit to, they don't get 15 months down the road, and then they're getting denied for something like, hey, why don't you give us a heads up 15 months ago that we were going this way. But we need to go one step further as far as permitting reform goes in this country, one big, beautiful bill was passed and signed into law. Congress might be thinking about what's next. I'll give you three principles that would be great to guide a permitting reform bill. Permits should take less time, cost less money, and have more certainty. And if you're checking those three boxes, that will only further ramp up the amount of investment, the pace, and the amount of new projects that will get built across this country. But no matter what, we're here to help to get done as fast as we can at epa.

Glenn Beck (40:30)

So do you have an idea of when the shovel will go in for a new power plant?

Lee Zeldin (40:37)

Yeah, for sure. I mean, it's going on all across the country with different projects at different timelines over the course of months and years ahead. There's going to be a whole lot of groundbreaking and ribbon cutting with power plants coming online with small projects that will be done to power a particular site, a particular company. They might have extra power that they're able to put into a grid, but you have companies all across the entire country breaking ground. In some cases we're talking about months, in other cases we're talking about years. But this isn't something that is a conversation for post Trump presidency. This is something that we are going to be able to celebrate progress on throughout the Trump presidency.

Glenn Beck (41:30)

Lee, you have set four new priorities for the EPA and they are energy dominance. I think we covered that permitting stream leading, streamlining all permitting. We've just covered that air energy. We did that. The last one is auto jobs restoration. What does it mean to restore auto jobs and how is that the purview of the epa?

Lee Zeldin (41:58)

See, I'm so happy that you asked. So when we were confirmed, shortly thereafter we sent three Biden EPA waivers to Congress for review that were given to the state of California that California used for the state level electric vehicle mandate mandate and other tailpipe emissions that a whole bunch of other states had then signed onto. So California's state level tailpipe emissions weren't just California, a whole bunch of other states signed on. So now you have two different standards throughout the country. Congress reviewed it and they passed the Congressional Review act on all three of the waivers to get rid of the waivers which President Trump signed. So those waivers are gone. Which means that California's proposal policy for that electric vehicle mandate and the other tailpipe emissions are gone. You and I were talking about the endangerment finding a little earlier. The proposal wasn't just about a reconsideration of the 2009 endangerment finding. The proposal also includes a rescission of all of the greenhouse gas regulations that followed regarding light, medium and heavy duty vehicles. Earlier on we were talking about reversing the diesel exhaust fluid system deratement. So we made that announcement in Iowa about a week, a week and a half ago. Part that we earlier on, I was talking about changing what is the off cycle credit that car manufacturers were using to put that annoying start stop feature in cars. Well, the endangerment finding reconsideration includes getting rid of that start stop feature in those vehicles. So there's a lot that EPA does in the space of, of auto manufacturing with jobs, lower cost vehicles, diesel engines for heavy duty vehicles, trucks, pickups, tractors for our farmers. We want to get all of these equipment, all this equipment, all these vehicles operating better, more efficiently, more cost effective.

Glenn Beck (44:10)

Last question. You know, it took FDR four terms to really completely change the nation. I asked Donald Trump before the election, I said, can we get enough done in four years? He said no. He said, but I think you'll be you'll, you'll see how fast we're going to move. He said. But I think we actually need 12 years to actually turn this, this ship and go in another direction. You think that's a fair timetable, that we would need two more administrations plus this one?

Lee Zeldin (44:47)

Well, listen, I would defer to how much time other agencies would need, how much time Congress needs, how much time future presidents would need to get certain things done. I will tell you, speaking for the epa, is that we are going to get everything done here over the course of the first year to year and a half. That's been the biggest surprise and shock that I had coming into the position is how much we're able to do it once we have a lot of bandwidth, we have a great team. And I thought that my team was going to tell me, all right, we're going to do these few things first and then a few months later, we're going to start these next few things and by the end of four years, we'll get through 70% of the agenda and hopefully things work out. November 28th we can finish with the next administration at the EPA. Despite all everything that we inherited and everything that needed to get fixed, I don't have anything on my calendar that we are waiting for year three or year four to get done. Everything is year one except for a few things that spill into year two for a very good reason that I already pressure tested timelines on. My goal is to fix everything out of the gate.

Glenn Beck (46:13)

Quite ambitious. I will tell you. I was so disappointed when you didn't win in New York. You weren't the governor of New York. That would have solved a lot of problems. But God works in mysterious ways and I am thrilled that you are at the epa. You're killing it. Thank you so much.

Lee Zeldin (46:26)

Thanks, Glenn.

Glenn Beck (46:32)

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.

Relief Factor Advertiser (46:56)

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

AMPM Advertiser (46:58)

Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

Relief Factor Advertiser (47:02)

Could you be more specific?

AMPM Advertiser (47:03)

When it's cravenient. Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at am, pm.

Relief Factor Advertiser (47:12)

I'm seeing a pattern here.

AMPM Advertiser (47:14)

Well, yeah, we're talking about what I.

Relief Factor Advertiser (47:15)

Crave, which is anything from am, pm.

AMPM Advertiser (47:17)

What more could you want? Stop by AMPM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience Am PM too much good stuff.