With their nomination hearings completed, Brooke Rollins and Lee Zeldin will likely be confirmed soon. Their leadership will deeply impact the American food system.
X
With their nomination hearings completed, Brooke Rollins and Lee Zeldin will likely be confirmed soon. Their leadership will deeply impact the American food system.
January 24, 2025
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), left, is U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Brooke Rollins, right, is the nominee to be Agriculture Secretary. (Photo credit: Anna Moneymaker and Kayla Bartkowski, Getty Images).
Trump’s cabinet picks to lead two of the agencies with the most responsibility over regulating and supporting the American food system—Brooke Rollins at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Lee Zeldin at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—have a lot in common.
Expand your understanding of food systems as a Civil Eats member. Enjoy unlimited access to our groundbreaking reporting, engage with experts, and connect with a community of changemakers.
Already a member?
Login
Both spent recent years supporting Trump’s reelection and a broader national shift toward conservative policies—sometimes together. After leading the Domestic Policy Council during the first Trump administration, Rollins became the president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a right-wing think-tank closely tied to Trump. Zeldin is a board chair for the same organization. That institute is tied to America First Works, an organization that helped get Trump reelected. Both Rollins and Zeldin are board members.
The two are friends and are known to be close to Trump, but neither has any significant professional experience in the areas covered by the agencies they’re tasked with leading.
The two are friends and are known to be close to Trump, but neither has any significant professional experience in the areas covered by the agencies they’re tasked with leading. During Rollins’ hearing, she referred repeatedly to her childhood on farms, raising cattle as a member of Future Farmers of America and 4-H, and her degree in agricultural development from Texas A&M. But after college, her resume does not appear to include any direct work related to food or agriculture. Zeldin—who studied political science and then practiced law before getting into politics (and then consulting)—has even less of a track record on environmental regulation or policy.
Despite that, in last week’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing to consider Zeldin for EPA administrator and yesterday’s Senate Agriculture Committee hearing to consider Brooke Rollins for Secretary of Agriculture, senators declined to ask any substantial questions about their relevant qualifications for the jobs. Both are expected to be easily confirmed.
Here’s what we know about the two nominees’ backgrounds, and what their hearings revealed.
Background. Rollins worked as a policy advisor for Texas Governor Rick Perry [R] before taking a position as the head of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a group backed by oil and gas companies that has worked to keep fossil fuels flowing and have been reported as spreading misinformation about climate change. Her husband is the president of an oil company. (Once, on a conference panel, Rollins said that the science on carbon dioxide as a pollutant is not valid.)
During the hearing, she said that after her first stint in the Trump White House, she started the AFPI to lay down policy groundwork for Trump’s eventual return to office.
Behind the scenes in D.C., lawmakers and policy staffers also see her as a potential foil to Trump’s pick for the third important food system cabinet member: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
AFPI’s policy agenda doesn’t say much of anything about the food system. However, the group’s broader policies, such as support for low corporate tax rates, immigration crackdowns, and increasing production of fossil fuels have major implications for farms and the broader food system. She’s also supportive of deregulation, a longtime priority of agricultural industry groups, who have largely lined up to support her.
Behind the scenes in D.C., lawmakers and policy staffers also see her as a potential foil to Trump’s pick for the third important food system cabinet member: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. (Kennedy’s hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 29.) While Kennedy has pledged to end the use of certain pesticides and promotes organic and regenerative agriculture, Rollins is seen as a supporter of the kind of conventional, chemical-based agriculture he wants to transform. She’ll also have jurisdiction over those issues; he won’t.
Rollins’ recent pick for chief of staff, Kailee Tkacz Buller, was most recently the CEO of the National Oilseed Processors Association, a trade association representing seed oil manufacturers. Seed oils are also one of the most frequent targets of ire for Kennedy and his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement followers.
The Hearing. Yesterday’s hearing had a jovial tone, with Republicans and Democrats joking with Rollins throughout while repeatedly acknowledging her mother and other friends and family members in the room. She started with a list of priorities that included getting the disaster and economic aid authorized by Congress in December out the door quickly, getting avian influenza under control, “modernizing” the USDA to align with Trump’s principles, and supporting rural communities. She answered most questions head on, hedging only a few times on questions related to nutrition programs and farmworker deportations.
Republicans praised her effusively. The issues that came up most often (and which many Democrats also touched on) were biofuels and trade.
Senators from farm states emphasized the importance of ethanol and asked her about her stance repeatedly. When asked about recent reporting that showed the Texas think tank she worked for put out policy documents critical of ethanol, she said she had not worked on those documents and expressed support for both ethanol and the advancement of sustainable aviation fuel.
In response to an ethanol question from Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), for example, she said, “I believe, Senator, that you and others who hail from these states, this is a driver for your farmers and your ranchers and your economy. You should feel very confident that you have a friend and a defender in this current administration to make sure this continues.”
“You should feel very confident that you have a friend and a defender in this current administration to make sure [support for ethanol production] continues.”
Many Senators expressed concerns about the agricultural trade deficit and the potential for President Trump’s proposed tariffs to negatively impact farmers. Tariffs Trump imposed on China during his last administration caused major losses in farm country. He then allocated tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to make up for it. When asked about a repeat situation, Rollins said multiple times that she was confident Trump’s trade policies would eliminate the deficit and that she’d be paying attention to whether tariffs hurt farmers. If they do, she said, “we are prepared to execute something similar.”
On the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the USDA program that provides aid to 40 million food-insecure Americans, she put more emphasis on making sure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently. When Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D-New Mexico) asked if she could commit to opposing “any cuts to SNAP that would prevent Americans, including millions of children, from putting food on their table,” she declined.
“Senator, it’s probably not surprising to you. I can’t commit to that,” she said. “Obviously, it is of utmost importance to me—and you and I discussed it—that we solve this, that it isn’t just hunger, it’s nutrition as well for so many of our children that don’t have access to those programs. But I also know that I have a duty to the taxpayer who is funding significant numbers of those programs.”
Senators on both sides of the aisle also stressed the importance of supporting small farms and a new generation of farmers, issues Rollins said were important to her.
Senator Jodi Ernst (R-Iowa) brought up California’s controversial animal welfare law, Proposition 12, and said it was hurting Iowa’s hog farmers and should be overturned. Rollins said she supports efforts to repeal the law. Later, Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who supports keeping Proposition 12 and believes it has helped smaller hog farmers and meat companies (like Niman Ranch) compete in an increasingly concentrated market, said he’d be bringing independent farmers to speak to her about the new opportunities the law had opened up for them, .
Finally, several Democrats brought up the critical issue of what Trump’s plans for mass deportations might mean for farmers and the food supply. “We literally can’t milk our cows without immigrant labor,” said Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont). In response, Rollins reiterated her support for Trump’s plans for deportations but said that she would work to understand the impact on farmers and work with the Department of Labor on improving guestworker programs.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota): “Your family has significant financial interest in the oil industry. Will these interests motivate decisions you make at the department, especially when they impact your family’s financial holdings?”
Brooke Rollins: “Anyone that has ever worked with me will tell you—even to the detriment of organizations I have run, detriment financially to my potential family—that I have never, not ever made a decision based on financial interest ever, and that certainly will not begin now.”
…
Senator Adam Schiff (D-California): “I want to raise the issue of the impact that mass deportations would have on [farmworkers]. . . . on people who are working so hard to put food on our table. . . . It’s estimated that perhaps half of California’s farm workforce is undocumented. So, my question is, how are we supposed to farm? How are farmers in California supposed to survive? If there are truly mass deportations in which half of the workforce is sent out of the country, we know Americans don’t want to do that work. It’s frankly just too backbreaking. So, who’s gonna work the farms?”
Rollins: “President Trump ran and was overwhelmingly elected on the priority of border security and mass deportation. He and his team are, if I’m assuming currently, putting in place the plans to begin that process. Of course first with those who have committed criminal offenses once they have been here. The American people have asked for a secure border and a system where they do not have to be concerned with the millions and millions that crossed here illegally and brought a lot of strife and unsafe communities to America. And I know this is not the committee where we discuss this, and I know probably the last thing you want to do is get into a debate right now over it, because I sure don’t want to, but let me answer your question. I will work around the clock with our new Labor Secretary if she’s confirmed, Laurie Chavez-DeRemer. I think everyone would agree, H-2A, important changes that need to be made to recognize within the agriculture community the importance of a strong labor force.”
…
Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas): “My home state of Arkansas has the highest rate of food insecurity in the nation. At the USDA, you will be responsible for leading 16 nutrition programs that assist one in four Americans. These programs make up the vast majority of the spending at the department. In spite of these programs, which have grown substantially over the last 20 years, the national food insecurity rate has hovered around 12 percent since 2001, even during times of economic prosperity. The goal of these programs is to provide temporary assistance to those in need, but the focus on moving families to a place of economic independence has been lost. Will you commit to reviewing these programs to ensure they help incentivize Americans to secure steady employment while still being able to trust that their federal supplemental assistance can be relied on in times of need?”
Rollins: “Senator, I so appreciate your concern and focus on this incredibly important program. . . . I am fully aware and have a heart for this work and for this community. It’s easy to make the commitment to ensure that we are doing everything we can, that this supplemental program continues on a course of being effective and efficient. Having said that, it’s also imperative to us that every taxpayer dollar that is spent in support of these programs, that we fully understand that it is reaching its intended recipient, and that that recipient is able to use it effectively and efficiently for true nutrition reasons.”
Background. Zeldin is a Republican former congressman from Long Island, New York. He served in Iraq as an active-duty member of the Army and is now in the Army Reserve. He ran for governor of New York in 2022 and started a consulting firm after he lost. His consulting firm specializes in “public relations, crisis management, strategy, and acquisitions,” and he has no experience with environmental science or regulation.
While in Congress, he voted to slash the EPA’s budget and against President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (which included significant investments in farm conservation practices) and supported Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. He voted for bills to ban drilling in some coastal areas and address PFAS contamination.
Zeldin received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry as a candidate. As a consultant, he accepted payments from lobby groups to write a series of political op-eds, and the publications did not disclose that he was paid to do so. One of the op-eds he was hired to write criticized New York Attorney General Letitia James for filing a lawsuit against the country’s largest meatpacker, JBS, for making misleading claims about its ability to reach net zero. In the op-ed, he called the state’s climate goals “lofty posturing” and said New York should reverse a state ban on fracking.
The Hearing. Throughout, Zeldin repeatedly presented himself as a practical administrator who will follow the law and fulfill the EPA’s obligations to guarantee Americans have “clean air and clean water.” He had met with most of the Committee members in advance and he offered to visit nearly every one of their states to better understand what’s happening on the ground. But he committed to very little and dodged questions that tried to nail down how he might lead on specific issues, especially climate.
While the EPA is the primary agency responsible for regulating pesticides, air and water pollution from meatpacking and other food processing plants, and animal agriculture facilities, those issues rarely came up during the more than three hours of questioning.
Republicans primarily praised his credentials, talked about rolling back renewable energy investments, and praised fossil fuels or talked about the dangers of moving away from them. “Americans should be able to take for granted that the lights will go on when they flip the switch. They should know that those making the rules understand that their livelihoods depend on a balanced and measured approach. Instead, the approach over the last four years has been based solely on radical environmentalism,” said committee chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia). “Congressman Zeldin will correct the course of the EPA.”
Democrats mainly grilled him on climate change, frequently referencing disasters including the wildfires in Los Angeles and Hurricane Helene. Trump has called climate change a hoax, but Zeldin acknowledged its reality. Beyond that, he mostly spoke in broad generalities. When Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) asked him if we need to do more to reduce carbon emissions to get on a trajectory toward climate safety, Zeldin started by saying emissions in the U.S. have been dropping over the last several decades.
“Unfortunately, there are other countries where it is not going in the same direction, and I would say that we will have never done enough to ensure that our water and our air is clean, safe and healthy,” he said. EPA data shows U.S. emissions have dropped 3 percent since 1990. Experts say global emissions need to drop by at least 60 percent (compared to 2019 levels) by 2035.
In his opening remarks, ranking member Senator Whitehouse focused on the fossil fuel industry’s support for Trump. “The question then for Mr. Zeldin here before us as President Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency is simple,” he said. “Will he follow the science and the economics and protect our air, water, and climate, or will he merely be a rubber stamp for looters and polluters who are setting the Trump agenda?”
Other agriculture-related EPA issues that came up briefly were remediation of PFAS “forever chemicals” and the controversial Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule. Neither conversation yielded clear information as to what Zeldin’s approach on the issues would be. (Yesterday it appeared the EPA withdrew new guidelines proposed by the Biden administration meant to regulate the amount of PFAS discharged into waterways from industrial plants.)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island): “Briefly and in layman terms—I know you’re not a scientific expert—what effect are carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion having in the atmosphere?”
Lee Zeldin: “Senator, well, I am someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists, the policy to the policymakers, and that we all work together. I don’t sit before you as a scientist. Fortunately, at EPA, we do have many talented scientists who provide that research. They have that talent to be able to tell us exactly what the metrics are of their research.”
Whitehouse: “Just generally and in layman’s terms, what effects do these carbon dioxide emissions have when they enter the atmosphere?”
Zeldin: “Trapping, trapping heat, Senator.”
…
Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas): “I found farmers and ranchers are best served when the EPA and the Department of Agriculture are working together. Can you tell us about how you envision EPA and USDA working together to create a predictable, science-based, and efficient regulatory system to ensure the timely availability of products and tools farmers and ranchers depend on to produce the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world?”
Zeldin: “I agree with everything that you just said, Senator. That must be our goal. That should be the relationship between all agencies, including the interaction between the EPA and the USDA in a way that you are able to go back to all of your constituents and to be able to talk about that progress that has been achieved as a result of these agencies working together.”
…
Senator Adam Schiff (D-California): “In places like [California’s] Central Valley, they can’t drink their own water. Here I’m not talking about lead, although lead is a problem there, but the flooding of dairy waste ponds into the water wells, the depletion of the aquifers resulting in manganese . . . there are just thousands and thousands of people told, ‘you can’t drink your water, you can’t bathe in your water.’ A lot of these communities don’t have the resources to address it, and if confirmed, I would want to work with you to do everything we can to make sure that everyone in the state of California and indeed the country has access to good, clean drinking water.”
Zeldin: “Yes, Senator, this is extremely important. No American should feel like a story they might hear about, read about, of, you know, poverty in Iraq or Afghanistan . . . no American should feel like they are living in some third-world country or some war-torn country. Every American should be able to access clean water, potable water, and that’s something that I look forward to doing my part, if confirmed, to be able to work with you and everyone on the committee to ensure that we are delivering as a nation.”
July 30, 2025
From Oklahoma to D.C., a food activist works to ensure that communities can protect their food systems and their future.
Last I checked, the most we spend is on military we spend the least amount and social welfare, entitlements and people that are in these categories aren’t gonna need temporary assistance. They’re gonna need assistance for their entire lives.