In a powerful show of unity, over 160 environmental and public health organisations have called for the resignation or dismissal of Lee Zeldin, the current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These groups assert that Zeldin has fundamentally undermined the agency’s core mission, jeopardising both public health and environmental protections. The open letter, issued on 24 March 2026, highlights the substantial rollback of critical regulations designed to combat climate change and safeguard clean air and water.
A Betrayal of Trust
The groups’ letter is a stinging indictment of Zeldin’s leadership, stating unequivocally, “No EPA administrator in history – Democratic or Republican – has so brazenly betrayed the agency’s core mission.” The signatories, which include prominent organisations like the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility, argue that Zeldin has systematically dismantled the very frameworks that protect human health and the environment.
Under his administration, the EPA has seen significant reductions in funding and staffing levels, which advocates claim prioritises corporate interests over the well-being of American citizens. “He slashed vital funding, gutted agency staff, and has rigged the system to put corporate polluters first,” the letter continues, underscoring the perceived corruption and mismanagement plaguing the agency.
Organised Opposition
This movement to hold Zeldin accountable was spearheaded by the Climate Action Campaign and Moms Clean Air Force, two leading environmental advocacy groups. Their efforts follow a petition from the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., earlier this year, which similarly condemned Zeldin’s approach to environmental regulation.
Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, articulated the urgency of the situation, stating, “The public deserves an EPA administrator who will face the challenge of the climate crisis head-on with proven policy solutions.” The call for Zeldin’s ousting is not merely a reaction to policy changes but reflects a broader demand for leadership that prioritises science and public welfare over corporate profit.
Internal Dissent and Backlash
Criticism of Zeldin’s leadership extends beyond external organisations. Current and former EPA staff have expressed their discontent through the “Declaration of Dissent”, a document highlighting serious concerns regarding the administration’s treatment of scientific programming and employees. Although some staff faced disciplinary action for their dissent, agency officials later clarified that their actions did not breach ethics rules. This internal strife indicates profound discontent within the agency itself.
Brigit Hirsch, a spokesperson for the EPA, defended Zeldin by asserting that the agency maintains a “zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining” the administration’s agenda. The Trump administration has consistently defended its sweeping regulatory rollbacks, asserting that it can safeguard the environment while simultaneously promoting industrial growth.
Upcoming Controversies
Adding to the controversy, Zeldin is set to be the keynote speaker at a climate conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, a right-leaning organisation known for its controversial stance on climate science. Funded by major corporations such as ExxonMobil, the Heartland Institute has been at the forefront of climate denial, which raises serious questions about Zeldin’s commitment to addressing the climate crisis.
Why it Matters
The ongoing struggle against Zeldin’s leadership represents a critical moment in the fight for environmental justice and public health. As climate change accelerates, the rollback of protective regulations can have devastating long-term effects on communities across the United States. The demand for Zeldin’s resignation is not just about one individual; it embodies a broader call for accountability and a reaffirmation of the EPA’s responsibility to protect the environment and public health. The outcome of this battle will have lasting implications for future environmental policies and the integrity of the agency itself.
