Gone in 90 Seconds: Zeldin Quickly Dismantles CNN Narrative on Climate Change, EPA

I exaggerate. It’s more like 110 seconds. 

Otherwise, this clip pretty much lives up to its hype, as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin exposed a vapid effort by CNN host Kasie Hunt to promote the climate-change narrative. Within less than two minutes, Zeldin exposes how unprepared Hunt was for the specifics of the issue she wanted to discuss, let alone in the way she tried to set up Zeldin for a public beating on The Science®. 

Zeldin announced last week that he planned to reverse the 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, a move that would invalidate an archipelago of regulations dating back to the Obama administration. Rather than just debate that, Hunt tried to frame Zeldin as some sort of heretic — and that turned out to be a bad move:

WATCH: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin just completely OBLITERATED CNN’s running propaganda. 😂

CNN: “Thank you so much for being here….Do you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest drivers of man made climate change?”… pic.twitter.com/S6y8uecwN7

— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) August 3, 2025

HUNT: I do want to start with the fundamental question that’s at the heart of all this. I mean, do you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest drivers of manmade climate change?

ZELDIN: Well, it’s great to be on with you. First, it’s worth pointing out that all eight or so images that you just posted on the screen have nothing to do with this week’s announcement. What was the 2009 Endangerment Finding had to do with was with regards to mobile sources, vehicles. This week’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding was with regards to mobile sources, vehicles. CNN has been using a lot of photos where they show smokestacks of stationary sources like power plants. That’s not what we proposed.

Now, going back to 2009, the science that they were reviewing included both optimistic to pessimistic scenarios. To reach the 2009 Endangerment Finding, they relied on the most pessimistic views of the science. The great news is that a lot of the pessimistic views of the science in 2009 that was being assumed ended up not panning out.Hey, that’s great. We can rely on 2025 facts, as opposed to 2009 bad assumptions. The other thing too is that, at EPA, we don’t just get to creatively make the law whatever we want it to be. The Supreme Court ruled in Loper Bright overturning the Chevron doctrine, in West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA that agencies like the EPA can’t just use vague language in statute and try to make it be whatever we want it to be.

The major policy doctrine also says that, when you’re going to reach something like an Endangerment Finding and then have trillions of dollars of regulation, that’s something that should be decided by our elected members of Congress in passing statute.

And, if you don’t mind, the 2009 Endangerment Finding, while it’s simply summed up now as saying carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, that’s not what they did back in 2009. They had a lot of mental leaps. They say carbon dioxide, when mixed with a whole bunch of other well-mixed gases, in some cases, not even emitted from mobile sources, they say that that — it contributes to global climate change. 

Doesn’t say causes, contributes. How much, they don’t say, but it’s north of zero, not much more than zero. And then they say that global climate change…

Having received a public beating herself, Hunt gamely tried to push the topic back to the global-warming narrative:

HUNT: So you’re sounding pretty skeptical of this overall scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions are the overwhelming manmade climate change driver.

ZELDIN: That is — that might be your way to try to twist my words. But what I’m saying is, is that we get our power at EPA from what the law states. And the Supreme Court in recent cases have been very clear. So what I was just describing with all the mental leaps used in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, Section 202 of the Clean Air Act doesn’t allow all of these different mental leaps, as the Supreme Court made clear in recent years. So I’m not going to get creative with the law. We’re going to read the plain language. And if Section 202 of the Clean Air Act gets amended by Congress, then we will follow that new law.

If you want more background on Zeldin’s argument, I wrote about it last week. If you read about the circumstances of the 2009 endangerment finding here or elsewhere and realized that Zeldin’s initiative is both technical and strategic, you did more to prepare yourself for this conversation than Hunt did. Zeldin wants to put an end to regulation around a specific issue on which the science is not settled, and for which the evidence still has yet to present itself, in order to allow the EPA to focus on more pressing issues. Strategically, though, Zeldin and Donald Trump want an end to Massachusetts v EPA and the model of court-ordered regulation rather than forcing Congress to pass laws. 

Zeldin showed up well-prepared to handle Hunt. The same cannot be said in reverse. And as ineptly as Hunt handled this, it still demonstrates that CNN doesn’t want to discuss the facts and the law, but rather wants to promote the extreme agenda of the climate-change activists. The fact that they can’t do that competently may be CNN’s only saving grace. 

Editor’s Note: The Protection Racket Media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.