EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has exposed what he calls an unprecedented scheme by the Biden administration. He claims it funneled $20 billion to left-wing activist groups under the guise of environmental programs. Zeldin stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had routed funds through an external financial institution. Eight intermediary groups then distributed the money with little oversight.
Zeldin highlighted a video featuring a former Biden-era EPA official discussing how funds were quickly allocated before the administration transition. He argued that this strategy was deliberately designed to bypass traditional oversight and transparency measures. “This is the first time in the EPA’s history that a financial arrangement of this scale and secrecy was used,” Zeldin said.
Reports say funds went to “environmental justice” and “climate equity” programs, but critics argue they mainly aided progressive groups, not real environmental efforts. Some funded groups had political ties, raising concerns over taxpayer misuse.
In response, Zeldin has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA’s Office of Inspector General launch an investigation into the funding scheme. He is also pushing for the immediate cancellation of the financial agreement and the return of the funds to the federal government. “The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” Zeldin declared.
This revelation has prompted demands for greater accountability and reforms in how federal agencies distribute taxpayer money. Conservative lawmakers and watchdogs demand stricter oversight of discretionary government spending.
The Biden administration has not yet responded to Zeldin’s claims. Some left-wing groups defend the funding, calling it vital for climate action and disadvantaged communities. Critics, however, argue that such funding should be fully transparent and subject to the same accountability measures as other federal spending.
As investigations proceed, the outcome could have major implications for federal agencies and their ability to allocate discretionary funds. If wrongdoing is confirmed, it may lead to policy changes to prevent similar financial mismanagement in the future.
