This newsletter was originally published on our Substack. Read and subscribe here.
The nomination process is officially underway. During yesterday’s hearing for Pete Hegseth, Senate Democrats rightfully provided a combative front in highlighting Hegseth’s alleged sexual assault, drinking on the job, sexism, lack of qualifications, and general ignorance about key issues he’ll oversee. This was to be expected—he was considered the most controversial nominee.
But, as we’ve pointed out all week, there are pressing questions to ask other Trump nominees about their conflicts of interests, records of facilitating environmental harms, and alignment with corporate America. So far, a large swath of Senate Democrats are failing miserably. Unwilling to be a true opposition party, some Democrats opted for fawning adoration, such as Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper lauding fossil fuel enthusiast & climate crisis downplayer Chris Wright as a “key innovator,” “scientist”, and a “successful entrepreneur.”
We urged a more aggressive and justifiably confrontational approach in our recommended questions for Doug Burgum, Chris Wright, Russell Vought, Pam Bondi, and Scott Bessent, which you can read here and here. Today we’ll get into questions for Lee Zeldin, nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency, and Scott Turner, nominee for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Preemptive Quitting is a Gift to Trump
But first, we’re also tracking the troubling trend of department and agency heads across the federal government voluntarily leaving their offices early to allow for Trump to nominate others to their positions.
Termed positions that aren’t coterminous with changes in presidential administration are crucial to the function of our government, and are meant to insulate certain offices from outside political pressures. When office heads step down preemptively just because Trump asked them to, it only serves to facilitate the functional politicized capture of these departments.
From the FBI to the IRS, those who seem to be folding without a fight to Trump’s worst whims will remove some of the last remaining guardrails within the executive branch that might prevent (or delay) Trump’s authoritarian impulses. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Others, like Rohit Chopra at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), are showing what it means to go out with an actual fight. Chopra is almost certain to be fired by Trump on Day 1, but instead of resigning himself to that fact (or literally resigning), Chopra has spent these last weeks and months filing a broad slate of suits against abusive companies, creating new and accessible tools for consumers, and otherwise taking popular tangible action in protection of the public interest. In doing so, Chopra has made it both more politically costly to remove him (given the robust popularity of these actions) and used his remaining time in office to continue to fulfill the mandate of his office. More appointees should follow his lead.
For more on this, Robert Kuttner wrote an apt analysis of those departing the federal government, and some of those staying, for The American Prospect. Now, here are the questions we’d like to see asked of Lee Zeldin and Scott Turner.
Lee Zeldin, Nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Hearing 1/16
- Votes Against Forever Chemicals Transparency and the Clean Air Act
- “You voted against an amendment in the National Defense Reauthorization Act that required the Defense Department to report to Congress on the clean-up of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, aka ‘forever chemicals.’ Forever chemicals are a live issue in your own Suffolk County, and the federal EPA under Biden was involved this year in a listening session hearing Long Islanders’ complaints. You also frequently voted against the Clean Air Act, even though Suffolk County has some of the worst air quality in New York, receiving an ‘F’ grade in ozone days from the American Lung Association. Toxic PFAS exposure can cause liver damage, thyroid disease and even cancer. How can Americans nationwide expect you to protect them from these toxic chemicals and air pollution when you repeatedly voted against protecting the people in the district you used to represent?”
- Votes to Cut Funding For the EPA
- “You have repeatedly voted against increasing the funding for the EPA. In 2017, for example, you voted for an amendment that would have cut $1.9 billion from EPA funding. The amendment was so radical that even 75 of your Republican colleagues opposed it. In 2022, you also voted for a budget amendment that would, as the League of Conservation Voters put it, ‘indiscriminately cut funding for environmental programs.’ Why should we support the nomination of someone who was hellbent on cutting the capacity of the agency they now seek to lead?”
- Support for Coal
- “By 2026, there is an expectation that coal generation will have closed half the capacity it had from when it peaked in 2022. The coal industry has, thankfully, been in rapid decline, a key step in combating climate change. However, you opposed limits on coal fire power plants. As head of the EPA, would you continue to support an industry that is contributing to a worsening climate, polluting our air and waterways, and poisoning our workers and communities?”
Scott Turner, Nominee for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Hearing 1/16
- Tenant’s Rights and Voting Record
- “In 2023, you called welfare ‘dangerous, harmful’ and ‘one of the most destructive things for the family.’ In 2019, you agreed with an interviewer’s statement that ‘receiving government assistance was keeping recipients in ‘bondage’ of ‘a worse form to find oneself in than slavery.’ However, as part of the department’s mission, HUD ‘provides rental assistance to 2 million families, oversees the country’s 800,000 public housing units, fights housing discrimination and segregation and provides support to the nation’s 650,000 homeless.’ Do you believe that these forms of government assistance, such as the rental assistance and public housing that HUD oversees, are dangerous? Do you plan on abandoning the millions of families that depend on HUD to keep a roof over their heads?”
- “In 2015, you voted for a bill in the Texas State Legislature that ensured that ‘landlords could refuse apartments to applicants because they received federal housing assistance.’ Do you continue to support the idea that landlords should be able to discriminate against tenants for receiving federal housing assistance? Will you recreate this discriminatory policy on a federal scale?”
- “In 2013, you opposed a bill in the Texas State Legislature to ‘expand affordable rental housing.’ HUD’s mission statement states the Department exists to ‘create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.’ Given that we are in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, why should anyone support the nomination of someone who opposes this core part of HUD’s mission?”
- “At America First Policy Institute, you highlighted the value of opportunity zones built into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for Black Americans. However, after the passage of the Trump tax cut, the TCJA, many Black business owners did not see the gains of the opportunity zones. Given this failure, which accelerated gentrification with little benefit to minority communities, will you vow to oppose such policies that deliver massive tax cuts to the rich while only paying lip service to helping low income and minority communities?”