From Protection to Persecution: EPA Enforcement Gone Rogue Under the Biden Administration

2025-09-16

Loading video...

Summary

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement primarily addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) enforcement tactics, particularly concerns about their impact on small businesses and the agency's broader role in environmental regulation. Discussions centered on the perceived aggressive nature of EPA and Department of Justice (DOJ) actions, contrasted with the critical need for environmental protection and public health safeguards. Members debated the appropriateness of enforcement measures, the scope of EPA's authority, and the consequences for both businesses and vulnerable communities.

Themes

Aggressive Enforcement Tactics and Impact on Small Businesses

The subcommittee heard testimonies detailing the significant negative impact of the EPA's enforcement tactics on small businesses <citation data-id="1.9"></citation>. Chairman Clay Higgins expressed concern over "overly aggressive enforcement tactics" used to intimidate small businesses <citation data-id="1.9" data-id="1.11"></citation>. He questioned the use of armed EPA agents for alleged regulatory violations, suggesting it serves a political agenda rather than public safety and is a "bridge too far" to terrorize Americans <citation data-id="1.26" data-id="1.28" data-id="1.34" data-id="1.35" data-id="1.39"></citation>.

Mr. Kory Willis, owner of PPEI, shared his personal experience, describing how his company faced prosecution starting in 2015 for selling automotive performance tuning products <citation data-id="4.5" data-id="4.9" data-id="4.14"></citation>. He recounted millions spent on legal fees and extensive staff time required to respond to EPA demands, culminating in a civil consent decree in 2022 <citation data-id="4.17" data-id="4.42"></citation>. Willis stated that the EPA demanded tens of millions of dollars and forced him to differentiate aspects of his business, including products for military, emergency, or off-road use, which he believed were not subject to strict federal emission standards <citation data-id="4.19" data-id="4.24" data-id="4.25"></citation>. He also highlighted the economic toll, including over $3.1 million paid to the EPA, more than $7 million in legal fees, and an estimated loss of over $12 million in business related to emissions-compliant products <citation data-id="34.2" data-id="38.1" data-id="36.1"></citation>. Willis noted that his plea agreement requires compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, despite his company never having shipped products into California <citation data-id="26.1" data-id="28.1" data-id="30.4"></citation>. He explained that CARB has not approved a single application in over two years, leaving his company on the brink of collapse <citation data-id="55.9" data-id="55.13"></citation>.

Mr. Justin Savage, an environmental lawyer, corroborated these concerns, focusing on the "surge of criminal environmental enforcement against small automotive industry players" for "check engine light violations" or OBD tampering <citation data-id="6.11" data-id="6.12"></citation>. He cited cases of armed agents raiding homes and individuals facing felony charges <citation data-id="6.20" data-id="6.24" data-id="6.25"></citation>. These actions targeted conduct previously considered a civil infraction by the EPA, emphasizing the "weaponization" of enforcement tactics <citation data-id="6.13" data-id="6.27"></citation>. Savage stated that the EPA reinterpreted the Clean Air Act to make such actions a crime after the conduct occurred, leading to a "nine-fold increase" in "baseless criminal prosecutions" under the Biden administration <citation data-id="6.28" data-id="6.36"></citation>. He argued that businesses often have no choice but to take a plea due to the threat of federal criminal prosecution <citation data-id="6.38"></citation>.

Justification and Importance of Environmental Enforcement

Ranking Member Summer Lynn Lee and Mr. Eric Schaeffer, former Director of the Office of Civil Enforcement at EPA, stressed the critical importance of enforcing environmental laws to protect public health <citation data-id="2.2" data-id="64.2"></citation>. Ms. Lee emphasized that EPA enforcement ensures access to clean air, safe water, and healthy land, preventing health issues like asthma and cancer, particularly for children and vulnerable communities <citation data-id="2.3" data-id="2.7" data-id="2.21"></citation>. Mr. Schaeffer highlighted that "defeat devices," which disable emission controls on diesel trucks, are dangerous and prohibited by the Clean Air Act <citation data-id="8.9" data-id="8.10"></citation>. He noted that EPA estimates such trucks released 570,000 tons of nitrogen oxides between 2009 and 2019, contributing to smog, respiratory diseases, and cancer <citation data-id="8.11" data-id="8.14"></citation>.

Schaeffer clarified that the enforcement initiative targeting these aftermarket devices began under the Trump administration and noted EPA's efforts to educate the public about the dangers and potential criminal penalties <citation data-id="8.17" data-id="67.6" data-id="69.4"></citation>. He asserted that federal courts have rejected arguments that the Clean Air Act does not apply to these devices, citing judicial decisions that uphold the statute's coverage of monitoring systems <citation data-id="8.35" data-id="8.37" data-id="8.38"></citation>. Ms. Lee pointed out that Mr. Willis's company sold devices that helped vehicle owners "skirt Clean Air Act emissions requirements" and contribute to "rolling coal," releasing "giant plumes of black smoke" <citation data-id="66.6" data-id="66.7"></citation>. Schaeffer explained that removing pollution control devices drastically increases emissions, with nitrogen oxide emissions becoming 310 times higher than those from compliant trucks, posing devastating health impacts <citation data-id="89.6" data-id="89.10"></citation>.

Members also raised concerns about environmental justice, highlighting that pollution disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color <citation data-id="2.21" data-id="46.6" data-id="87.2"></citation>. This leads to higher rates of asthma and other illnesses in these areas <citation data-id="88.2"></citation>. Ms. Pressley criticized recent EPA grant cancellations, including those aimed at mitigating childhood lead poisoning and air pollution, as undermining protections for vulnerable populations <citation data-id="44.7" data-id="44.8"></citation>. She cited a WBUR article indicating mass firings at EPA destabilizing the workforce and leaving communities without critical safeguards <citation data-id="84.3"></citation>. Mr. Schaeffer agreed that cutting these grants removes a "lifeline" for communities that lack resources to fight back <citation data-id="46.14" data-id="46.15"></citation>.

EPA's Authority and Regulatory Scope

The discussion also delved into the extent and legitimacy of the EPA's authority and regulatory framework. Chairman Higgins questioned the EPA's "badge and gun authority" for what he described as technical, alleged regulatory violations without suggestions of harm or violence <citation data-id="1.28"></citation>. He suggested the agency's focus had shifted from prosecuting "massive industrial polluters" to "mom and pop shops" under the Biden administration <citation data-id="1.23" data-id="1.24"></citation>. Justin Savage argued that the EPA "moved the legal goalposts" by reinterpreting the Clean Air Act to criminalize actions previously considered civil, lacking clear statutory authority for these prosecutions <citation data-id="6.13" data-id="6.27" data-id="6.41"></citation>. He advocated for clearer rules and public-private partnerships for compliance <citation data-id="6.47"></citation>.

Conversely, Eric Schaeffer emphasized that Congress granted the EPA criminal enforcement authority under the Clean Air Act, and the problem of tampering with emission controls is "very serious" <citation data-id="1.12" data-id="67.1"></citation>. He explained that the Clean Air Act prohibits tampering with monitoring devices and that this position, including potential criminal penalties, was supported by the Trump administration's enforcement initiatives <citation data-id="8.29" data-id="8.31" data-id="8.32"></citation>. Mr. Grothman raised concerns about the EPA's air quality standards being "out of control" and "anti-business," citing issues in Wisconsin where ozone pollution originates from other states yet affects local non-attainment status <citation data-id="48.14" data-id="48.15" data-id="48.16"></citation>. He also questioned the reliability of the EPA's IRIS program for chemical assessments, particularly regarding "ridiculous standard[s]" for ethylene oxide that are significantly lower than naturally occurring levels <citation data-id="50.7" data-id="50.8" data-id="50.9"></citation>. Savage agreed that IRIS is not statutorily authorized and its process is "broken," leading to overly stringent regulations <citation data-id="51.3" data-id="51.4" data-id="51.5"></citation>.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting's tone was largely polarized, reflecting a sharp division between members who expressed deep concern over governmental overreach and those who prioritized environmental protection and public health <citation data-start-id="1.9" data-end-id="1.11" data-id="2.2" data-id="2.3"></citation>. Speakers on both sides were passionate and accusatory, with Chairman Higgins describing EPA actions as "regulatory terror" and "terrorizing Americans" <citation data-id="1.11" data-id="1.35" data-id="1.39"></citation>. Mr. Willis's testimony conveyed a sense of injustice and immense burden, recounting his personal struggle and financial strain <citation data-id="4.5" data-id="4.17"></citation>. Mr. Savage described EPA enforcement as a "game of gotcha" utilizing "heavy-handed tactics" against small businesses <citation data-id="6.16" data-id="6.20"></citation>.

Conversely, Ranking Member Lee and Ms. Pressley expressed indignation at the alleged "dismantling" of environmental protections, emphasizing the severe health consequences for children and communities of color <citation data-id="2.28" data-id="44.4" data-id="84.10"></citation>. They criticized the majority for selective concern over criminalization, highlighting a perceived disparity in compassion for corporations versus individuals facing lesser charges <citation data-id="92.7" data-id="92.12" data-id="92.17"></citation>. Mr. Schaeffer maintained a factual tone, defending the necessity of enforcement based on scientific evidence of pollution's harm <citation data-id="8.10" data-id="8.14" data-id="85.1"></citation>. The overall atmosphere was one of significant disagreement, marked by strong rhetoric from both sides on the balance between regulatory enforcement and individual/business freedoms.

Participants

Transcript

The Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement will come to order.  We welcome everyone.  We are waiting on a couple of members to arrive.  However, we're going to begin, respectful of our witnesses, one of whom has a hard stop.  And then we have votes scheduled at about 1.30.  So we're going to move forward.  I recognize myself.   for the purpose of making an opening statement.  Today the subcommittee is going to hear about the aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice to intimidate small businesses into consent agreements and other enforcement actions.  Today's hearing focuses on one specific issue.   The overly aggressive enforcement tactics, many of which are better suited for hardened criminal enforcement, used by the Biden administration to intimidate hardworking small business owners and set an example through regulatory terror against everyday American entrepreneurs.  The Clean Air Act clearly provides the EPA with criminal enforcement authority.   like it or not, Congress granted the EPA that authority.  What is in question is whether the agency, which has seen its enforcement program shift from prosecuting industrial polluters to persecuting small businesses, the question is whether or not they have fairly and consistently applied its use of criminal authority, or if enforcement actions under any administration were hypercharged   in pursuit of left-wing political objectives under the so-called banner of environmental justice.  In the 1990s, Congress expanded the EPA's criminal authority.
However, shortly after enactment, the EPA conceded it has limited criminal authorities.  In an internal 1993 EPA memo, EPA enforcement personnel concluded   that Congress intended criminal responsibility of an owner or operator to be strictly limited to, quote, senior management or corporate officers, or the Clean Air Act violation was a knowing and willful magnitude of intent.  That memo went on to state, quote, automobile dealer or repair shop tampering   with automotive air emission systems still cannot be prosecuted criminally under the CAA since the mobile source regulations impose various compliance certification responsibilities only on automobile manufacturers and not on the dealers.  Over time, the EPA's enforcement focus has clearly shifted.   Instead of pursuing massive industrial polluters who implore highly paid legal defense teams.  EPA under the Biden administration chose to focus on mom and pop shops and with the shops had limited means to argue their case against the legal might of the Department of Justice, backed by the EPA.  Often EPA's enforcement actions   involved raids on shops by teams of armed EPA agents who intimidated small businesses with threats of criminal prosecution.  If achieved, these prosecutions would deprive targeted individuals of their right to vote, their Second Amendment rights, not to mention the destruction of their businesses.
As a former law enforcement professional, I question why the EPA even has the authority to have armed agents raiding Americans' homes and workplaces for alleged violations that are often highly technical, regulatory violations, alleged regulatory violations, with no suggestion of any threat of harm or violence to law enforcement.   It's a legitimate question Americans should ask.  Why are these raids even happening in a regulatory environment?  There are plenty of other law enforcement resources at the state and local level that when truly appropriate, if the EPA felt that they needed that kind of help, they can employ to help execute a warrant.  But what is clear   is that the use of armed EPA agents is not motivated by public safety.  Rather, such heavy-handed tactics are clearly aimed at intimidation, have a regulatory focus and purpose backed by a political agenda, and they drive that message home very clearly when they hit a home or a business at 0 dark 30   and terrorize the business owners and the families.  For this reason, the subcommittee has conducted a thorough review of all regulatory agencies, quote unquote, badge and gun authority to determine if rogue administrative agencies need their authorities curtailed under any administration.  Obama administration, the Biden administration, President Trump's administration,   Regulatory authority is regulatory authority.  The terrorizing Americans is a bridge too far.
I fear the EPA's aggressive use of its criminal authority proves the adage, quote, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Madam ranking member, I would like unanimous consent to enter a letter dated April the 11th   directed from me, directed to Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Department of Justice, and the Honorable Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the EPA.  Without objection, I now recognize the ranking member, Ms.  Lee, for the purpose of making an opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.   Enforcing our environmental laws is critical to protecting public health and ensuring that every person in this country has access to clean air, safe water, and healthy land.  When EPA enforces the law, children can breathe without inhalers or drink water without lead and play outside without fear of developing rare cancers.   I recognize that navigating the EPA regulations isn't always straightforward, especially for small businesses.  But complexity does not make these protections any less necessary.  Defeat devices are banned because they cause real harm.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up