Watchdog Questions Zeldin’s Tour With Embattled GOP Candidates

Lee Zeldin traveled with Republican candidates in competitive races while EPA headquarters promoted the visits through press releases. The pattern prompted the Campaign Legal Center to question whether official resources were being used for political activity.

For example, Zeldin visited an auto repair shop and a construction firm in central Pennsylvania with Rep. Scott Perry. He also traveled with Ashley Hinson in Iowa and Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin. Kedric Payne said investigators should examine what was said at those gatherings.

The EPA described the trips as fact-finding visits, not campaign events. Its spokesperson said Zeldin was meeting regulated people, collecting feedback, and advancing EPA’s mission. The concern remains whether the travel had another explanation beyond promoting candidates, a key Hatch Act test.

Zeldin traveled with Scott Perry in central Pennsylvania, Ashley Hinson in Iowa, and Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin. Perry was described as one of Congress’s most endangered Republicans. Hinson was in a neck-and-neck race for Iowa’s open Senate seat, while Van Orden was defending Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District.

He later made a three-day Michigan swing with Bill Huizenga and Tom Barrett. Their races were described as crucial to deciding control of Congress. These stops stood out because they paired an EPA administrator with Republicans facing competitive elections.

The political stakes extended beyond those five candidates. Zeldin also visited Maine, New Hampshire, and Arizona’s Maricopa County, all connected to important Senate or congressional contests. The visits created concern that official travel was helping candidates in strategically important places.

The Hatch Act sets boundaries for political activity by federal employees. It is meant to keep government work separate from electioneering and prevent official authority from becoming a campaign tool. The article describes it as an 87-year-old law.

Cabinet officials such as Zeldin have more freedom than most civil servants to attend campaign events and similar activities. However, taxpayer-funded travel and government communications cannot be used to support political activity. The restriction can apply even when an official does not directly ask people to vote.

The law often involves a fine line. Investigators consider whether an official’s conduct has a legitimate government explanation besides promoting a candidate. That question is central to concerns about Zeldin’s travel, EPA press releases, and the messages delivered during his visits.

Zeldin’s travel campaign reached several politically important regions. The article describes trips to Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Maine, and New Hampshire. It also says he made a three-day swing across Michigan and visited Maricopa County in Arizona.

The visits included competitive congressional districts and states with key Senate races. Some trips involved candidates, while others did not. The article also reports that seven other cabinet members had exceeded Zeldin’s number of political-hot-spot visits during the summer, according to The Atlantic.

However, the supplied article ends before stating how many states Zeldin had visited during his first nine months as administrator. That total cannot be determined from the provided text. The documented itinerary establishes at least seven named states, not the full nine-month count.

A Hatch Act problem does not require an official to say, “Vote for this person.” Government travel, staff time, press operations, and taxpayer-funded publicity can still increase a candidate’s visibility and provide an official platform during an election.

That is why Kedric Payne focused on EPA’s press and communications shop. Zeldin’s visits were promoted through EPA headquarters press releases, and he traveled with candidates in competitive races. Payne said investigators needed to know what was said at the gatherings and whether another explanation existed.

The EPA offered a legitimate alternative explanation: Zeldin was meeting regulated people, requesting feedback, and carrying it back to Washington. The dispute turns on whether those official purposes fully explain the timing, locations, participants, and government resources used during the visits.

Michael Regan’s travel record, as described in the article, was less concentrated in contested races. Before the 2022 midterms, he made one visit with a member of Congress during the preceding month. That visit involved Democrat Pat Ryan, who was fighting to keep his New York seat.

Regan toured an EPA-managed asbestos removal site in Ulster County with Ryan. In 2024, none of Regan’s visits with members of Congress took place in contested districts. He did travel with Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and Rep. Chuck Edwards in North Carolina to see Hurricane Helene’s impacts.

Zeldin, by contrast, visited several battleground districts and states while candidates faced competitive races. The comparison does not establish that Zeldin violated the Hatch Act. It shows why the concentration of his trips drew more scrutiny than Regan’s documented visits.