Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) clashed in a heated congressional hearing Monday over Supreme Court rulings and federal regulatory authority on climate change policies.
The exchange, which took place during a House appropriations hearing on the EPA’s proposed fiscal 2027 budget, escalated as DeLauro accused the Trump administration of abandoning its responsibility to address climate change.
Recommended Stories
She described the agency’s budget as a “climate change denier’s manifesto” and pressed Zeldin to justify rollbacks of environmental regulations.
But Zeldin was ready to defend the administration’s actions, pointing to statutory limits and recent court decisions that have shaped federal agency authority. He cited the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case and invoked the “major questions doctrine,” which restricts agencies from making sweeping policy decisions without clear congressional authorization.
Zeldin then rattled off a series of major Supreme Court cases, prompting visual frustration from the longtime appropriator.
The confrontation reached a peak when DeLauro dismissed Zeldin’s legal arguments as “BS,” adding that he was before the committee for budget purposes.
“BS? You think I made up these cases?” Zeldin fired back.
DeLauro said she thinks that Zeldin “made up a whole lot.”
Later in the hearing, the argument took a sharper turn when the discussion shifted to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup.
After Zeldin warned against ingesting the chemical, DeLauro retorted that “maybe you should try doing that,” drawing criticism from Republicans and further inflaming the exchange.
The remark comes as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a high-stakes case involving Roundup manufacturer Bayer, Monsanto v. Durnell, and whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits.
The litigation stems from tens of thousands of claims alleging glyphosate exposure caused cancer, with Bayer arguing that EPA-approved labels should shield it from liability.
SUPREME COURT SPLIT OVER ROUNDUP CANCER WARNING LAWSUIT
The case, argued this week, could reshape how environmental risks are regulated and litigated nationwide, with implications for both public health claims and federal agency power.
Following arguments on Monday, the high court appeared to be split on its decision. The court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June, when the justices will wrap up their current term.
The White House jumped on the exchange after, saying DeLauro’s argument was a “terrible take” and insulting her purple hair.
