webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

SEAN donahue esq

---

MERRI OK

BOYFRIEND

LoBBY REVOLV DOOR

see SCAVINO DIRTY TRICKS PPO

DOGE HATCHET MAN FIRED IGs

sen wh

S2941-1

[Page S2941]

From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Nomination of Sean Donahue

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of

Sean Donahue of Florida to serve as General Counsel of the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Donahue may be the most unfit nominee ever for any Federal Agency

general counsel. As I said in my remarks in committee, this guy would

have trouble getting an entry-level legal position in any one of our

offices, yet here we are.

The Constitution provides the Senate with advice and consent power.

This power should carry some meaning. ``Advice and consent'' should not

be empty words, a rubber stamp.

The Senate confirmation vote on Mr. Donahue that is moments away

shows how little we care to live up to that constitutional

responsibility. This is a truly preposterous nominee. The EPA general

counsel is the chief legal advisor to EPA on environmental laws,

including Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the

Superfund Act, and others; on the Agency's development and

implementation of regulations under its various statutes; and on

litigation strategy with DOJ in court challenges to Agency actions. The

general counsel oversees nearly 200 lawyers and 300 total staff.

Mr. Donahue has no experience qualifying him to do any of these

things. He has never tried a case to verdict, never taken a deposition,

never signed a pleading, never argued a motion. He has never personally

litigated any case, let alone Federal cases implicating our Nation's

most important environmental office.

What has he done? Mr. Donahue practiced law for a year and a half at

a small firm in Buffalo that fired him for his version of being

``overloaded with work.'' He was not even a member of the New York bar,

however, and he then failed the DC bar on his first attempt. He claims,

in New York, to have supervised six to eight individuals, which seems a

stretch for someone not even a member of the bar. And there is no

evidence--whatever minimal and unsuccessful legal experience Mr.

Donahue had--that any work he may have done bore at all on the laws and

regulations applicable to EPA.

The previous seven Senate-confirmed EPA general counsels were pretty

impressive: Counsel Prieto, two decades in Federal service, including

as general counsel at both the Department of Agriculture and DOJ's

Energy and Natural Resources Division; Counsel Leopold, 14 years as an

environmental lawyer and general counsel of the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection; Counsel Garbow, 21 years practicing

environmental law in the public and private sectors, including at the

EPA and DOJ; Counsel Fulton, 22 years of leadership roles at EPA,

following 8 years at DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division;

Counsel Martella, court of appeals law clerk, 7 years with the Natural

Resources Section of DOJ, Acting EPA general counsel; Counsel Klee, law

firm for 9 years, chief counsel to the Senate Environment Public Works

Committee for 5 years, and senior counselor to the Secretary of the

Interior; Counsel Fabricant, 2 years in private practice and 5 years as

private counsel, then chief counsel to then-New Jersey Governor

Christie Todd Whitman. This guy? A year and a half, fired, then in-

house counsel at a solar company, tried no cases ever.

So why him? Well, I suspect part of it is that he will be so grateful

that he will do whatever he is told. We have actually seen this

already, even before his confirmation. He testified that the Trump

administration's current assault on congressionally authorized,

appropriated, and obligated funding was legal, never mind multiple

Federal district court orders to the contrary. I would love to see him

take that argument into those courts that had already found those

orders illegal.

Second, and perhaps more telling, who cares at EPA if their counsel

has neither experience nor knowledge? They are going to be overseen by

the fossil fuel industry anyway. He will be told what to do by fossil

fuel polluter lawyers. So all he will have to do is put what they want

on EPA letterhead and file it.

Oh, yeah, and the nepo thing. His significant other is the Deputy

Director of Presidential Personnel, a role with purview over every

political appointment, including his.

Mr. President, this is a pretty bleak low point in Senate

nominations' history. This is the last chance to pull back from the

brink of confirming, likely, the most flagrantly unqualified person

ever for an Agency general counsel position.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

I yield the floor.

```

---

AOC

XO LEGAL IMMUNITY FOR BAYER, MTG DISCUSS CT?

JULY 7 2025 VISITOR LOGS FEB 18 TRUMP XO

FOIA SR ADVISOR OF RURAL AGRIC AFFAIRS SCOTUS

UPDATE EPA WWW

RFK2 SAID ASK YOU

EPA WITHDRAW CA WARNING --> SCOTUS

Come with me as I catch the Head of the EPA in a Corruption Trap on Glyphosate - YouTube

TRANS: Ocasio-Cortez Presses EPA Administrator Zeldin on Trump’s Decision to Allow Bayer to Poison Americans for Profit | Representative Ocasio-Cortez

---

ggl 5 26

AI Overview

Sean Donahue is the confirmed EPA General Counsel (as of May 2025), serving under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in the Trump administration. Donahue oversees legal advice for the agency and is involved in pesticide litigation strategy and deregulatory efforts. He has faced scrutiny over his qualifications and role in meetings with chemical companies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.gov) +4

Key Details on Sean Donahue and EPA Under Zeldin:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.gov) +2

Center for Biological Diversity +2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.gov) +1

Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog

Donahue-Zeldin EPA Actions:

Center for Biological Diversity

The Michigan Daily

Congress.gov

Lee Zeldin serves as the EPA Administrator as of early 2025.

---

5215857-democrats-grill-epa-nominee-green-bank-controversy

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) questions nominee for Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin during his Senate Environment and Public Works Committee nomination hearing on Jan. 16, 2025.

IFrame Content

Democrats grilled Sean Donahue, President Trump’s pick as top lawyer for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the agency’s attempts to terminate already issued climate grants during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

Sen. Adam Schiff(D-Calif.) asked whether Donahue “had been a participant in meetings and discussions over trying to go after” the grant program.

Donahue said he had, but “mostly on the civil defense” side once grant recipients sued the EPA.

Schiff also asked what the consequences should be for opening a criminal probe without evidence of a crime.

Donahue said he didn’t want to answer “hypotheticals.”

The Trump administration has been going after a handful of recipients who got billions of dollars in climate grants issued under the Biden administration.

A judge recently halted the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back the grants, saying it did not provide evidence of wrongdoing.

The Justice Department and FBI have been investigating the matter. A veteran Justice Department prosecutor resigned after she reportedly refused to freeze grantees’ bank accounts.

During the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse(D-R.I.) said the episode had “multiple red flags flying of prosecutorial misconduct.”

Democrats also sought to paint Donahue as unqualified during the hearing, in which lawmakers also considered the nominations of Jessica Kramer to lead the EPA’s Office of Water and Brian Nesvik to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Whitehouse asked Donahue a series of questions, including whether he had taken a deposition, tried a case all the way until the verdict, argued a motion or authored and signed a legal pleading.

He said he had not.

Sen. Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-Del.) brought up Donahue’s partner’s job in an office that helps the Trump administration nominate political appointees.

---

no talk 5 26

Sean Donahue - Wikipedia

Sean Michael Donahue is an American lawyer and government official who has served as general counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since May 22, 2025.[1] He was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the United States Senate in a 51–46 vote.[2]

Early life and education

Donahue was raised on the Space Coast of central Florida. He earned a Bachelor of Science in legal studies from the University of Central Florida and a Juris Doctor from the Florida State University College of Law.[3]

Career

Private sector

After law school, Donahue joined Phillips Lytle LLP in Buffalo, New York, as an associate in its Land, Environment & Energy practice group. He later served as director of regulatory affairs for Norbut Solar Farms, a Rochester-area solar developer.[4]

Trump administration

During President Trump’s first term, Donahue held non-legal posts in EPA’s land and public-records offices.[4]

Nomination and confirmation

On February 11, 2025, Trump sent Donahue’s nomination to the Senate to serve as an assistant administrator and general counsel of the EPA. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a confirmation hearing on March 26, 2025, at which Democrats pressed Donahue on his limited courtroom experience.[5]

The committee advanced the nomination on April 9, 2025, along party lines. Cloture was invoked on May 14, and the full Senate confirmed Donahue on May 15, 2025, by a 51–46 vote with all present Republicans in favor and all present Democrats opposed.[2]

Criticism

Questions about legal experience

Much of the opposition to Donahue has focused on his limited courtroom background. During his 2025 confirmation hearing he acknowledged that, in more than a decade since law school, he had never taken a deposition, argued a motion or drafted a legal pleading — all duties that are routine for junior litigators.[5] Asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whether he knew the definition of a motion in limine, Donahue replied, “I do, vaguely, yes,” prompting Whitehouse to remark that the Donahue "may be the most unfit nominee ever for the role of any federal agency’s general counsel,” and that he “would have trouble getting an entry-level legal position in any of our offices.”[5]

Donahue further testified that his only private-practice experience was an 18-month stint at the Buffalo firm Phillips Lytle—employment that ended, by his own account, when the firm fired him.[5]

Need for litigation expertise

Former EPA general counsels from both parties argued that the post requires seasoned litigators who can defend regulations in court. C. Scott Fulton, who held the job under President Obama, said the general counsel “is deeply influential in the direction, construction and defense of all EPA regulatory actions,” adding that Donahue’s inexperience could hamper the administration’s agenda.[5] Avi Garbow, also an Obama-era GC, stressed that “this is not merely an advisory role … it will require litigation chops and an understanding of how regulatory and policy decisions can best be defended in courts of law.”[5]

Conflict-of-interest concerns

During the March 2025 hearing Donahue acknowledged that his partner, Trent Morse, was then serving as deputy director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the office that vets all political appointees. Democrats said the relationship created, at minimum, the appearance of a conflict, because Morse’s staff had helped screen Donahue’s application; the administration countered that Morse had recused himself “from anything related to Sean Donahue.”[5]

Impact on environmental policy

Environmental lawyers and advocacy groups warned that seating an untested attorney as the agency’s top lawyer could accelerate efforts to roll back environmental safeguards, shrink the EPA’s workforce and restructure key programs, because courtroom defeats would delay or deter new rules.[5] They argued that Donahue’s background as a political advisor rather than a litigator, signals a preference for deregulation over robust legal defense of existing statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Senate Democrats’ assessment

At the committee vote on April 9, 2025, every Democrat opposed the nomination. Whitehouse summed up their view by calling Donahue “the most unfit nominee ever for the role of any federal agency’s general counsel,” and predicted that his “manifest incompetence” would ultimately aid opponents of the administration’s environmental agenda.[5]

See also

References

---

icn

The Trump administration’s choice for the Environmental Protection Agency’s top lawyer has never taken a deposition, argued a motion or authored a legal pleading. On Wednesday, Republicans on a Senate committee advanced Sean Donahue’s nomination on a party-line vote.

The EPA arm he would lead, the Office of General Counsel, oversees the enforcement of environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

During Donahue’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in late March, Democrats pressed the nominee on his legal qualifications. Donahue told lawmakers his previous legal practice had mostly involved work as an associate at the law firm Phillips Lytle for 18 months before that firm fired him.

In response to a question on whether he knows what a motion in limine is—a motion to exclude or limit evidence or arguments—Donahue said shakily, “I do, vaguely, yes.”

Donahue also worked briefly at a solar energy company and served for three years in the first Trump administration, acting as a special advisor in the EPA, a non-legal position. Before that, he worked at the Florida Department of Financial Services. After President Donald Trump took office in 2025, Donahue returned to the EPA; his current position is senior advisor in the agency’s Office of the Administrator.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Donahue will lead a team of more than 200 attorneys and serve as a key liaison on environmental matters between the EPA, the Office of White House Counsel and the Department of Justice. He will also have the final authority on all legal interpretations within the agency. The role “is deeply influential in the direction, construction and defense of all EPA regulatory actions,” said C. Scott Fulton, who served as EPA general counsel under President Barack Obama.

Fulton added that the general counsel will likely play a central role in Trump’s second term—especially in the administration’s efforts to roll back regulations, shrink the EPA’s workforce and restructure agency programs.

The Trump administration’s environmental policies are already being challenged in court, with many more lawsuits expected over the next three and a half years. According to Avi Garbow, who also served as EPA general counsel under Obama, the role of the agency’s top lawyer is heavily focused on litigation.

“This is not merely an advisory role, or one that is policy-oriented, it’s a role that undoubtedly will require litigation chops and an understanding of how regulatory and policy decisions can best be defended in courts of law, working alongside government counsel at the Department of Justice,” Garbow said.

At the March confirmation hearings, Donahue acknowledged that his partner, Trent Morse, serves as deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of presidential personnel. In that role, Morse is responsible for vetting political appointees like Donahue.

The Trump administration has said one of its main priorities is to bring “merit-based opportunity” to the federal government and has moved to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs as part of that effort.

A Trump administration official told Inside Climate News in a written statement, “There is no conflict of interest. Trent Morse recused himself from anything related to Sean Donahue. Administrator Zeldin selected Sean, who went through the exact same interview process as other candidates.”

Republicans lauded Donahue’s work in the first Trump administration, and the White House said in a statement that his experience makes him “exceptionally qualified for this role.”

“He would have trouble getting an entry-level legal position in any of our offices.”

— Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Chairman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) urged her colleagues to vote in favor of Donahue’s nomination on Wednesday, saying that his “prior service at the EPA and his private sector legal experience” made him qualified to lead the EPA’s Office of General Counsel.

​​“President Trump made a fantastic choice in selecting Sean to lead EPA’s Office of General Counsel,” said Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokeswoman. “His years of public service to the American people at the federal and state government level is a boon to the agency. If confirmed, Sean will advance EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, Administrator Zeldin’s ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’ initiative, and the president’s agenda by ensuring the office provides the best legal advice.”

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said during the March confirmation hearing that Donahue “may be the most unfit nominee ever for the role of any federal agency’s general counsel,” adding, “He would have trouble getting an entry-level legal position in any of our offices.”

Most previous EPA general counsels, across Democratic and Republican administrations, have had decades of federal, private and environmental law experience before their nominations to the position.

On Wednesday, Whitehouse said of Donahue’s committee vote: “I will vote no, despite the fact that his manifest incompetence will probably work to our advantage.”

As general counsel, Donahue would be the key official navigating lawsuits against the EPA.

Donahue’s confirmation comes as the Trump administration is attempting to roll back scores of environmental protections, reshore polluting industries and confiscate billions of dollars of low-carbon energy grants issued to American businesses and organizations under the previous administration. Environmental regulation is one of the more complex areas of law because polluting human activities, and the ecosystems that U.S. laws aim to protect, are inherently complicated and dynamic.

Donahue’s nomination still requires approval from the full Senate.

---

good ee

President Donald Trump’s pick to be EPA’s top attorney appears poised to advance toward Senate confirmation despite Democratic concerns about his qualifications.

Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she’ll vote for Sean Donahue to be general counsel, and expects other Republicans to do so as well.

Donahue faced a line of questions at his confirmation hearing last week from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), the committee’s top Democrat, aimed at showing a lack of legal qualifications, while other Democrats pushed him on issues like the Trump administration’s freezing of grant funding....

---

off bs

Senate Confirms Sean Donahue as President Trump’s EPA General Counsel

May 15, 2025

Contact Information

EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)

WASHINGTON– The U.S. Senate has confirmed Sean Donahue to serve as the General Counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Sean Donahue will work in this new role to advance the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative.

“President Trump made a fantastic pick in Sean to be EPA’s General Counsel. He has the experience and expertise to help us advance our core mission, Power the Great American Comeback, execute on President Trump’s promises, and help us root out waste and abuse. I am proud Sean is returning to EPA and look forward to continuing our work to protect human health and the environment,”said EPA Administrator Zeldin.

“It is the honor of a lifetime to return to EPA and serve as its General Counsel. Under President Trump’s bold leadership, the agency is delivering for the American people by championing sound environmental policies grounded in its statutory authority—and we are doing this while ensuring clean air, clean water, and clean land for all Americans. I look forward to leading the Office of General Counsel as we fulfill its critical duty to provide the best legal advice and advance EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment. Thank you to President Trump, Administrator Zeldin, and my EPA colleagues for their confidence and unwavering support,”said EPA General Counsel Sean Donahue.

:{:{EPA's General Counsel is the chief legal advisor to EPA, the federal agency with primary responsibility for implementing the nation’s environmental laws. These laws include the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”). }:

:{:{The General Counsel leads the Office of General Counsel (OGC) in providing legal counsel to EPA policymakers, providing critical input to rules, regulations, and guidance documents that are promulgated and issued to implement the agency’s statutory obligations. In addition, the General Counsel and OGC provide assistance to Congress on national legislation affecting the environment and address international law issues. Working with EPA headquarters and regional offices, OGC attorneys also provide legal support for the issuance of permits, and the approval of state environmental programs.}:

In tandem with the United States Department of Justice, the General Counsel and OGC represent the Agency in court challenges to agency actions, appeals of enforcement cases, and Supreme Court litigation. The General Counsel carries out these functions not only with respect to EPA’s environmental programs, but also in connection with EPA’s day-to-day operations.}:}:

Sean Donahue returns to EPA after having served as a Special Advisor in the Administrator’s Office and Office of Land & Emergency Management from 2018 to 2021. He most recently was an associate counsel at a solar energy company, where his work included environmental permitting, compliance, and advising on all phases of the project lifecycle. Prior to this experience, Sean worked as an associate at a regional law firm, where he worked on a variety of environmental and energy matters. Sean is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and earned his Juris Doctor from Florida State University College of Law and a Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies from the University of Central Florida.

Here’s what people are saying about Sean Donahue’s presidential appointment:

Senator Rick Scott (R-FL):“I’m proud to congratulate Floridian Sean Donahue on his confirmation as General Counsel of the EPA. Floridians love our natural treasures and Sean will work hard to preserve and protect our environment for future generations.”

Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL):“I was so proud to vote to confirm Sean Donahue to be the next General Counsel of the U.S. EPA. Yet another great leader hailing from the Free State of Florida serving in the Trump administration. I have no doubt he will do an excellent job!”

Former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler:“Sean did a great job at EPA during the first Trump Administration. He’s a very smart and capable lawyer and he’s going to be an outstanding General Counsel.”

Former EPA General Counsel Matt Leopold:“Congratulations to Sean Donahue on his confirmation as EPA General Counsel. He will serve this Administration well leading the lawyers defending the agency’s most important actions.”

Former EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson:“Sean Donahue worked tirelessly during the first Trump Administration, and he will continue to be dedicated to serving EPA deliver positive environmental accomplishments while empowering new manufacturing and economic success.”

Related Links

Contact Us about News Releases

Last updated on May 15, 2025

---

cbd

For Immediate Release, March 12, 2026

contact:

Nathan Donley, (971) 717-6406, ndonley@biologicaldiversity.org

New Documents: Trump EPA Administrator Met With Pesticide CEO During Push to Shield Company From Lawsuits

WASHINGTON— Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and other top officials met with Bayer’s CEO to discuss “legal/judicial issues” months before the Justice Department weighed in at the Supreme Court on the chemical company’s behalf, according to a memo and visitor logs obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity.

In December the Trump Justice Department supported Bayer’s request to the Supreme Court to consider its appeal in Monsanto v. Durnell for a shield against liability for the health harms linked to pesticides. In January the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

The memo and proposed agenda for a June 17, 2025 meeting said Bayer’s CEO also planned to thank the EPA for “its work on MAHA” and “updating the glyphosate web page,” in apparent reference to the agency withdrawing its previous support for California’s cancer warning on glyphosate labels.

“These documents show the unfettered access one of most powerful pesticide corporations in the world has to EPA’s top officials and it raises serious questions about just how far Trump’s political operatives within the EPA and the DOJ were willing to go to bat for Bayer,” said Nathan Donley, the Center’s environmental health science director. “It’s disgusting that the EPA administrator is so accessible to the pesticide industry. He almost certainly wouldn’t give the time of day to the thousands of Americans suffering from cancers linked to glyphosate and other EPA-approved pesticides.”

According to the memo, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, at the June meeting Bayer CEO Bill Anderson, EPA Administrator Zeldin, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the chemicals office Nancy Beck, and General Counsel for the EPA Sean Donahue were set to discuss “legal/judicial issues” involving the Supreme Court. The proposed meeting agenda covered:

The “glyphosate web page” update is likely a reference to the EPA’s decision in May 2025 to withdraw its 2022 letter stating that California was authorized to require language on pesticide labels for products containing glyphosate warning of cancer risk so long as the label also stated that the EPA did not agree with that conclusion.

An internet archive search revealed that the only change to the EPA’s glyphosate webpage during that time period was the letter withdrawal, and metadata from the withdrawal letter indicated it was updated on May 9, 2025 by staff that work under Beck at the EPA chemicals office.

Withdrawing that letter likely played a part in the Department of Justice’s decision to reverse its 2022 position that states can add warning labels on pesticides beyond what the EPA requires under federal law. The letter withdrawal was specifically cited in the Solicitor General’s brief arguing for the Supreme Court to consider Bayer’s case.

The following timeline indicates the June 17 meeting at EPA headquarters came at an important juncture leading up to the Supreme Court’s January decision to hear the glyphosate case:

“The Department of Justice has completely trashed its proud tradition of independence and apolitical pursuit of justice,” said Donley. “It’s a very sad day in America when our own DOJ is actively working to deny Americans their day in court.”

---

new rep The New Republic

For an uncomfortably long time on Monday, two lawmakers shouted at one another about climate change in a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing about the Trump administration’s proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. One was EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The other was 83-year-old Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut. The spat did what Zeldin seemingly hoped it would: generate a viral moment for his boss and his boss’s base. It also helpfully distracted attention away from the ostensible purpose of the hearing: to discuss why Zeldin and the Trump administration want to cut in half the budget of the agency charged with protecting the country’s air and water.

It makes sense that Zeldin was eager to evade substantive questions about an EPA tenure spent giving generous giveaways to polluters, dismantling independent research, and hemorrhaging staff. He also didn’t talk too much about the White House’s plan to slash the EPA’s budget down to just $4.2 billion. Zeldin’s record, that is, has already earned the ire of Make American Healthy Again activists. This is an especially volatile week to court more of it. The Supreme Court and Congress are both hearing arguments this week about glyphosate—the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, produced by the German chemicals giant Bayer AG. Several scientific studies have linked glyphosate to cancer, and it’s accordingly one of the MAHA movement’s least favorite substances.

No doubt Zeldin would rather be seen going toe-to-toe with an octogenarian than being confronted with the fact that his agency got a personal thank-you from Bayer for its work on glyphosate. Unfortunately for Zeldin, that confrontation was captured on camera too.

It would be easy for that to get lost in the news this week, or even in the flurry of glyphosate-related news. The Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in a case that could grant Bayer blanket immunity from being sued over glyphosate, and let the company off the hook for tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of lawsuits that claim Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The House is also due to take up this year’s Farm Bill, which currently includes a provision that would likewise bar states and courts from penalizing or holding “liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements that would require labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

:{:{Glyphosate has become an understandable cause célèbre for MAHA, and its advocates are rallying in Washington this week. For months now, they’ve been railing against Zeldin and other Republicans for awarding top positions and regulatory concessions to some of the country’s biggest polluters. At the end of March, some three dozen MAHA leaders sent a tensely worded letter to Zeldin chastising the EPA for continuing to “approve, expand, and normalize chemical exposures that directly undermine that goal, driven by the chemical industry lobbyists who occupy senior leadership positions at the agency.”}:

The group went on to state several specific demands to enact a “real MAHA agenda” at the EPA, largely focused on controlling harmful pesticides and microplastics. Even if MAHA’s beliefs and electoral potency remain up for debate, Republicans are certainly responsive to their concerns. This week’s dispute over glyphosate could spark the biggest showdown yet in an emerging MAGA-MAHA split.}:

The Trump administration has enthusiastically supported Bayer’s case not just for legal immunity but to produce and distribute even more glyphosate and phosphorous—two Bayer-made products. Trump signed an executive order in February invoking the Korean War–era Defense Production Act to deem their manufacturing “critical to the national defense.” The order also protects companies that make glyphosate and phosphorus from lawsuits related to materials or products produced in accordance with the act, i.e., glyphosate and phosphorous. Trump’s Justice Department has enthusiastically supported Bayer in its case before the Supreme Court—and received a crucial assist from Zeldin’s EPA.

Asked about this issue on Tuesday afternoon, Zeldin was considerably more subdued than he was when bickering with DeLauro. In her line of questioning, toward the end of the hearing, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drilled Zeldin over his agency’s communications with Bayer.

“Administrator Zeldin,” she asked, “have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing?” Zeldin stated that he had only had a “brief meet and greet, and that topic did not come up.”

Again, Ocasio-Cortez asked whether the EPA had discussed the issue with Bayer. Zeldin doubled down. “I’m telling you 100 percent absolutely. Maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics, but that topic was not brought up.”

:{:{She then presented an internal EPA email from last June, obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity via the Freedom of Information Act. The email shows Zeldin’s senior adviser for agriculture and rural affairs—Henry Turner Bridgforth—discussing his conversation with Bayer in advance of the company’s June 17 meeting with senior agency officials. “After talking with Bayer’s team,” Bridgforth tells some of Zeldin’s top aides, including EPA general counsel Sean Donahue, “they are going to bring up some legal/judicial issues.”}:

Among the list of “Discussion Topics” included in Bridgforth’s subsequent memo was “Glyphosate: Bayer will want an update on EPA reg review, as well as give some updates of their own.” Another discussion item is “Supreme Court Action: Bayer will give an update to the Administrator on where they stand in litigation and labeling options.” The final discussion included in the memo is “Thanks: Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate web page and work on MAHA.”}:

The Center for Biological Diversity noted back in March, the EPA only updated its glyphosate web page once during that time, in May 2025. The change reflected the agency’s decision to withdraw its 2022 letter stating that California could require language on pesticide labels for products containing glyphosate—warning of cancer risk—so long as those labels also stated that the EPA did not agree with that conclusion. The Biden administration’s stance revised a Trump 1.0-era crackdown targeting California’s decision to label glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” in line with the findings of the World Health Organization’s International Agency on the Research for Cancer, or IARC.

:{:{As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out while questioning Zeldin, Bayer’s argument to the Supreme Court relies heavily on the fact that—because these sorts of state-level warnings are now prohibited—the federal government’s assessment that Roundup is safe should insulate it from lawsuits over its failure to disclose that product’s cancer risk.}:

Essentially, Bayer is arguing that glyphosate is legally safe because the EPA said it was in 2020. And because disclosures about those risks no longer exist, Bayer argues that it can’t be sued for having failed to disclose cancer risks under state laws nullified by the EPA. Trump’s solicitor general filed a brief last December supporting Bayer’s position that federal law preempts states from adding warnings on pesticide labels beyond those established by the EPA. The solicitor general filed another in March further stating its support for that position. That second brief is supported by EPA general counsel Sean Donahue, who Bridgforth requested to attend the meeting with Bayer.}:

In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s questioning, Zeldin stumbled over a few words about an ongoing EPA assessment of glyphosate before being asked to respond in writing. The EPA has until October 1 to complete its review of glyphosate, which theoretically could conclude that it causes cancer. By that time, as Bayer is certainly aware, Congress already may have passed the Farm Bill’s protections for glyphosate and SCOTUS may have decided to grant Bayer blanket legal immunity.

If gripes about glyphosate were coming just from environmentalists (or cancer patients), then Zeldin might have an easier time brushing them off. But Republicans seem genuinely alarmed by the prospect that the MAHA base that was on their side when it came to vaccines could turn against the party’s deregulatory agenda. MAHA leaders’ letter to Zeldin from March spelled out several demands, largely focused on controlling harmful pesticides and microplastics: conducting an emergency review of pesticides banned elsewhere, closing loopholes for pesticides registration, shutting the “revolving door” between the EPA and polluting industries, protecting people from microplastics in drinking water, and enacting “a moratorium on permitting for new plastic production facilities and expansions of existing facilities.”

To meet these demands would undoubtedly enrage petrochemical companies and lobbyists that have been loyal Republican donors. In the 2024 election cycle, nearly 70 percent of campaign contributions from the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby group, went to Republicans. Counting only contributions to political action committees, or PACs, that cycle, the split is even more dramatic: 77 percent of the ACC’s PAC donations went to Republican-aligned PACs.

This tension has yielded some awkward posturing from Zeldin and other officials eager to keep both MAHA and polluters happy. The EPA, for instance, recently broadcast plans to allegedly “unmake” plastic waste by supporting questionable technology known as “advanced recycling,” which uses chemicals to break down certain types of plastics. Typically, that happens through a process called pyrolysis. Petrochemical producers and lobby groups have advertised these expensive, polluting methods as preferable alternatives to policies that might actually force them to limit the production of plastics—a vanishingly small percentage of which (less than 10 percent) has ever been recycled. As ProPublica has reported, no more than 10 percent of plastics produced using pyrolysis are actually recycled.

Such oil-intensive processes have been found to release carcinogens, such as benzene and dioxins, into the atmosphere. Advanced recycling facilities have traditionally been regulated as incinerators under the Clean Air Act. Undergirding the EPA’s promotion of advanced recycling is a change long pushed by the American Chemistry Council that would instead regulate advanced recycling facilities as “manufacturing.” The change would mean that those facilities would have to account for fewer pollutants. And as the Natural Resources Defense Council’s John Walke told ABC News, the process by which the EPA is going about this could amount to an “immediate deregulation” of these facilities, “leaving a gap where no federal emissions standards would apply.”

Earlier this month, Zeldin and Kennedy announced “landmark, coordinated actions to address microplastics contamination.” In reality, they placed microplastics on a list of substances (the Contaminate Candidate List) that might eventually be considered contaminants, and then might at some point be regulated. Often, however, substances that end up on this list are never regulated. “This is the first step in a process that almost always leads to not regulating,” Suzanne Novak—a senior attorney and director of drinking water advocacy at Earthjustice—told Inside Climate News.

The alliance between MAHA types and the GOP has always been strange. Why did MAHA think its priorities could be defended by a party that has never exactly been shy about its loyalty to the corporate polluters? Whether or not MAHA supporters break up with the party—and whether or not those votes actually end up mattering—Lee Zeldin’s EPA has given them plenty to be angry about.

Kate Aronoff

Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at The New Republic. She is the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet—and How We Fight Back and co-author of A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal. Kate is also a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, and serves in Dissent’s editorial board.

Read More:

Climate, Lee Zeldin, Environmental Protection Agency, MAHA, Glyphosate, Supreme Court

---

---

GUK

EPA chief met with Bayer CEO over supreme court fight, agency records show

This article is more than 1 month old

Top US regulators met with Bill Anderson to discuss ‘supreme court action’ over glyphosate weed killer

[Carey Gillam]

Fri 13 Mar 2026

Top US regulators met with Bill Anderson, Bayer’s CEO, last year to discuss “litigation” issues – including “supreme court action” over its glyphosate weed killer – just months before the Trump administration took a series of steps to boost Bayer’s case at the high court, internal government records show.

The 17 June meeting, between officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Anderson and two other top Bayer executives, came as the Germany-based company was working to quash costly US litigation brought by tens of thousands of people who allege they developed cancer from their use of the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup.

At the core of those lawsuits are claims that the company failed to warn users of the risk of cancer, as shown in several research studies over many years.

One of Bayer’sstated key strategies to try to end the litigation, which has so far cost Bayerbillions of dollars in settlements and jury verdict awards, is getting the supreme court to agree with Bayer’s argument that if the EPA does not require a cancer warning on its glyphosate products, the company cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk.

While one appellate court has sided with Bayer, multiple other courts have rejected that preemption argument, as did the US solicitor general under the Biden administration. In contrast, the Trump administration has acted to defend and promote Bayer’s position and its glyphosate herbicides.

In a statement Bayer said the meeting at the EPA was a “normal part of the regulatory process” and that the company has been “transparent about our position” regarding glyphosate litigation.

The show of administration support has largely come after that 17 June meeting, which government email communications and visitor logs confirm took place with Anderson and the other Bayer executives arriving at the EPA on the appointed day a little before 1pm.

According to a 13 June internal EPA email planning for the meeting, Bayer’s team was “going to bring up some legal/judicial issues”, and discussion topics were to include “supreme court action”.

The company would “give an update to the administrator on where they stand in litigation and labeling options”, the planning email states.

The meeting came less than two weeks ahead of a request from the Supreme Court for the Trump administration’ Justice Department to weigh in on whether or not the court should agree to hear Bayer’s case.

The EPA officials attending the meeting with Bayer were to include Lee Zeldin, the agency’s administrator, along with Nancy Beck, formerly senior director at the American Chemistry Council who is now the EPA’s principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Sean Donahue, who was confirmed last May as the EPA’s general counsel, and Turner Bridgforth, senior adviser for Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs at the EPA, were also to attend.

“It’s becoming abundantly clear that the political appointees at the EPA are more invested in protecting pesticide company profits than the health of Americans,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which obtained the email communications in a Freedom of Information Act request and provided them to the Guardian.

“When the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world is meeting with political appointees in a US regulatory office, it shows just how much power and influence these corporations have on decisions that can have very real consequences for the health of all Americans,” he said.

“The Trump EPA seeks input from a broad range of stakeholders, including MAHA advocates, doctors, scientists, farmers, and ranchers to ensure our policies are grounded in transparent, gold-standard science, and advance the Make America Healthy Again agenda,” Brigit Hirsh, the EPA press secretary, said in a statement. The meeting with Bayer was “a standard introductory meeting” and was not a meeting to discuss pending litigation, Hirsh said. She did not explain why the planning email for the meeting specifically said litigation would be discussed.

Multiple moves supporting Bayer

Since the meeting, the Trump administration’s support for Bayer has taken many forms.

In a 1 December filing with the US supreme court, D John Sauer, the solicitor general appointed by the Trump administration in April 2025, told the court that it should take up the Bayer case, and the supreme court subsequently agreed to do so, setting a hearing for 27 April.

---

---