Zeldin Headlines Skeptics' Conference as EPA Rolls Back Climate Rules

Cover image from motherjones.com, which was analyzed for this article

Climate skepticism is rising under Trump, highlighted by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's keynote at a denier conference near the White House. Outlets note a shift from prior administrations, with denial advocates gaining prominence. This aligns with Trump's energy policies amid war fallout.

PoliticalOS

Thursday, April 9, 2026 — Politics

4 min read

The Trump administration has elevated climate policy skeptics to influential positions and begun repealing foundational climate regulations, most notably the 2009 endangerment finding. These moves enjoy strong support from industry-aligned groups and face fierce legal and scientific pushback from environmental organizations. The ultimate test will be whether courts accept the EPA's narrower view of its statutory authority and whether resulting policy changes produce net economic benefit or measurable increases in climate-related damages.

What outlets missed

Most coverage omitted the EPA's documented legal rationale for repealing the endangerment finding, which cited two recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agency authority on major questions. Outlets across the spectrum downplayed specific economic modeling: the agency's own projection of $1.3 trillion in savings through 2055, offset by roughly $1.4 trillion in higher consumer costs according to E&E News analysis. Few noted Zeldin's first-year enforcement record on non-climate issues, including Tijuana River sewage remediation and illegal pesticide enforcement. Heartland's current $4 million annual budget from undisclosed foundations received minimal scrutiny beyond historical fossil-fuel ties that largely ended by 2012. Finally, precise observed warming data (1.44°C anomaly in 2025 per Berkeley Earth) and the temporary nature of single-year exceedances of the 1.5°C threshold were absent from nearly all reports.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin received a standing ovation from 220 climate policy skeptics gathered blocks from the White House this week. His keynote at the Heartland Institute's International Climate Change Conference signaled a decisive shift: the agency will no longer treat the 2009 endangerment finding as settled law, canceling tens of billions in prior climate grants and narrowing regulatory reach. The audience saw vindication. Environmental organizations saw betrayal.

The central unresolved question is whether these changes will survive court scrutiny or deliver the economic gains the administration projects. Zeldin told attendees on April 8 that EPA decisions would rest on "accurate, present-day facts" rather than "bad, flawed assumptions," according to video of the event and multiple press accounts. He specifically cited the cancellation of grants he described as "grift" and rejected what he called blind obedience to daily "doom and gloom" warnings from figures including Al Gore, John Kerry and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Heartland Institute President James Taylor praised Zeldin as "unbelievable" in the role and expressed hope he would not be moved to replace Attorney General Pam Bondi. Princeton emeritus professor William Happer, a former Trump National Security Council official, told the crowd no other position mattered more for the economy and ordinary Americans.

Under Zeldin the EPA has moved to repeal the 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health, a legal cornerstone for nearly all federal climate rules. The agency projects $1.3 trillion in compliance savings through 2055, according to its own February announcement, though analyses from E&E News note those figures are partly offset by projected increases in fuel and repair costs reaching $1.4 trillion over the same period. The repeal followed Supreme Court decisions limiting EPA authority and drew immediate lawsuits from 160 environmental and public health groups who called for Zeldin's resignation, per statements compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund and Guardian reporting.

Heartland has spent decades arguing that climate risks are overstated and that carbon dioxide benefits plant life, a position mainstream scientific bodies reject. The group reported receiving about $4 million annually from foundations and individuals; it has not disclosed current donors but received documented Koch foundation support totaling more than $55,000 between 1997 and 2011, according to IRS filings tracked by SourceWatch. Past Heartland campaigns included 2012 billboards likening climate advocates to the Unabomber. Speakers at this year's conference included West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, climatologist Judith Curry and authors of a contested Department of Energy report that questioned consensus modeling. Outside the hotel, EDF Action posted billboards stating "Climate denial won't lower insurance costs."

Legal pushback has already produced setbacks. A D.C. Circuit judge questioned the evidentiary basis for some grant terminations, Inside Climate News and AP reported in March. Environmental groups argue the repeal ignores observed warming of 1.2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times and projected impacts including intensified heat waves and coastal flooding, per assessments from Berkeley Earth and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The administration counters that prior rules exceeded statutory authority and imposed disproportionate costs on energy production, manufacturing and households.

Reactions split sharply along familiar lines. Taylor called the moment "a true champion" at EPA after years of marginalization. Marc Morano of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow described Zeldin as the most consequential administrator in the agency's history. In contrast, the Environmental Defense Fund vice president Joanna Slaney said Zeldin was "executing on the playbook of denial." Most major scientific organizations continue to affirm that human emissions are the primary driver of recent warming. The conference ends Thursday with a scheduled address by physicist John Clauser, who disputes aspects of cloud feedback modeling.

The event occurs against broader Trump administration energy policy emphasizing expanded domestic production and reduced international climate commitments. Whether the new approach produces measurable economic relief or measurable environmental costs will be tested in courts, markets and the atmosphere over the coming decade.

Coverage ranged from outright celebration on the right to condemnation on the left. RedState and Newsmax portrayed Zeldin as heroically dismantling harmful rules and gave platform to skeptic praise with minimal counterpoint. The New York Times and Mother Jones depicted the same events as dangerous resurgence of denialism, foregrounding scientific consensus and environmental opposition while minimizing policy rationales or economic arguments. Between these poles, the event was either triumph or travesty with little space for the legal and economic trade-offs that will ultimately decide its impact.

Behind the Coverage

newsmax.com

Most biased

redstate.com

nytimes.com

motherjones.com

Least biased

What each outlet got wrong

newsmax.com

Newsmax used primacy framing by opening with skeptics' praise and quotes from Morano, Taylor, Hayes, and Happer (80% of content), burying legal challenges and opposition in one sentence at the end; it also attributed an unverified quote to Morano citing Politico: 'We don't want to lose him at EPA... most consequential EPA chief in the agency's history.'

Our version: The neutral version balances reactions from both sides equally, includes verified quotes from Zeldin and others without unverified attributions, and details opposition scale and court scrutiny prominently.

redstate.com

RedState employed loaded slurs like 'climate fanatics,' 'climate freaks,' 'scolds,' and 'sky is falling crowd' in the title and body, blending Zeldin's quotes with author endorsements such as 'Bring it, Zeldin. You’re right...' and unsubstantiated claims that eco-warriors’ predictions 'have failed to materialize.'

Our version: The neutral version uses neutral terms like 'climate policy skeptics' and presents quotes without author opinion or unsubstantiated assertions, focusing on verifiable facts and both sides' arguments.

nytimes.com

NYT framed the event with loaded labels like 'climate change deniers' and 'fringe event' in the title and body, dismissing claims as 'false' (e.g., 'fossil fuels are the greenest energy sources') without nuance, and used unverified paraphrases like Zeldin 'driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.'

Our version: The neutral version describes participants as 'climate policy skeptics,' acknowledges specific arguments like CO2 benefits for plants, and includes policy details like the endangerment finding repeal without pejorative dismissal.

motherjones.com

Mother Jones sensationalized with labels like 'conference of climate change deniers' and 'prominent climate-denying think tank' in the title, editorialized quotes (e.g., Zeldin's statement 'referring to well-established climate science'), and stacked sources from 160 environmental groups without counterarguments.

Our version: The neutral version avoids 'deniers,' presents Zeldin's quotes neutrally, balances sources from Heartland, administration, and environmental groups, and includes EPA's legal and economic rationales.

Facts outlets left out

Heartland Institute's documented past funding, including over $55,000 from Koch foundations (1997-2011) per IRS filings tracked by SourceWatch

Omitted by: newsmax.com, redstate.com

EPA's projected $1.3 trillion in compliance savings through 2055 from the repeal, offset by $1.4 trillion in fuel and repair costs per E&E News analyses

Omitted by: newsmax.com, nytimes.com, motherjones.com

Lawsuits from 160 environmental and public health groups calling for Zeldin's resignation, per Environmental Defense Fund and Guardian reporting

Omitted by: newsmax.com, redstate.com

D.C. Circuit judge questioning evidentiary basis for grant terminations ('You have to have some kind of evidence'), per Inside Climate News and AP in March

Omitted by: newsmax.com, redstate.com, nytimes.com

EPA repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding as a legal cornerstone for climate rules, following Supreme Court limits on agency authority

Omitted by: nytimes.com, motherjones.com

Framing tricks we caught

Primacy framing

“Newsmax opens with 'A gathering of the Heartland Institute’s climate contrarians... delivered a clear message to President Donald Trump: Keep... Zeldin,' devoting 80% to praise quotes before one sentence on challenges.”

Neutral alternative: The neutral version leads with the event facts and Zeldin's actions, then balances audience reaction, opposition, and unresolved questions equally.

Loaded language

“RedState title 'Zeldin Zings Climate Fanatics' and body terms like 'climate freaks,' 'gloom and doom crowd,' and 'loony Massachusetts Senator.'”

Neutral alternative: The neutral version uses 'climate policy skeptics' and quotes figures like Al Gore without slurs, letting statements speak for themselves.

Dismissive labeling

“NYT title 'Climate Change Denial Sees a Resurgence' and body 'false claims made at a conference... by groups that reject the overwhelming scientific consensus.'”

Neutral alternative: The neutral version notes Heartland's position is 'rejected by mainstream scientific bodies' while detailing specific arguments like CO2 plant benefits.

Source stacking

“Mother Jones cites 'more than 160 environmental... organizations called for him to resign' and EDF's Joanna Slaney without skeptic or neutral sources.”

Neutral alternative: The neutral version includes quotes from Taylor, Morano, Happer, and Slaney, plus scientific consensus affirmations for balance.