House appropriators press EPA on FY26 ‘skinny’ budget, reorganization and grant cuts

EPA Administrator Zeldin told House appropriators on the Rayburn Office Building hearing room floor that the administration’s fiscal year 2026 “skinny” budget seeks to shrink agency spending and realign priorities even as members from both parties warned of consequences.

The hearing’s most immediate budget figure: “The request provides 4,200,000,000 for the EPA,” a committee member said during opening remarks, describing that amount as roughly $5 billion below the FY2025 continuing resolution. That shortfall, coupled with proposed changes to how EPA awards grants and runs programs, was the subject of sustained questioning.

Why it matters: The proposed cuts would reduce categorical grants that states use to run federally delegated environmental programs, change grant administration, and accompany a reorganization of EPA offices. Members from both parties said those moves will directly affect state and tribal programs, local water systems and longstanding technical-assistance arrangements.

Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the approach as following the president’s directive to “return EPA to its statutory functions” and to eliminate “waste and abuse.” He said the agency would “absolutely follow the law” if Congress provides appropriations above the request and that EPA maintains a “zero tolerance policy toward wasting any tax dollars.”

Republican members pressed that excess spending and prior supplemental funding had expanded the agency beyond its core mission. One member said EPA “received $100,000,000,000 in supplemental funding outside of the annual appropriations process” and warned of a staffing cliff if temporary hires are absorbed into discretionary budgets. The transcript records that EPA used supplemental dollars to add more than 1,300 full‑time equivalents.

Democrats, led in questioning by Ranking Member Chellie Pingree, argued the cuts would gut scientific capacity and public‑health protections. Pingree accused the administration of seeking to “systematically dismantle the EPA” and said eliminating the Office of Research and Development would “cause irreparable harm” to the agency’s ability to assess risks such as PFAS contamination.

Members on both sides sought detail on how EPA would implement the reorganization and what would happen if Congress provided higher funding levels. Administrator Zeldin said the agency would spend amounts appropriated by Congress as directed and promised internal efforts to improve efficiency, citing plans to consolidate some functions and to shift staff into newly prioritized offices.

Several appropriators asked for more transparency and earlier delivery of full budget materials so Congress can complete appropriations work on time. Chairman Tom Cole and other members said the “skinny” submission gives only a partial view and urged the administration to provide more detail.

Less central items that surfaced during the questioning included the proposed elimination of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) from the budget, which some members said has strong health returns, and concerns about long‑term obligations created by hiring temporary staff with supplemental dollars.

Looking ahead: Members asked EPA to deliver a reorganizational chart, a plan for any net change in full‑time equivalents by office, and clearer explanations of how cuts to categorical grants would affect state programs and technical assistance. Zeldin agreed to follow up and said the agency will continue to “spend the money appropriated by Congress.”