A recent exposé by Project Veritas revealed a series of undercover recordings alleging a significant misuse of funds by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration. As Trump’s return to the White House seemed inevitable, Biden administration insiders apparently made strategic moves to secure climate funding and big post-election salaries at “green” companies before Trump could do anything to halt the scheme.
Known for its controversial tactics, Project Veritas has a history of targeting progressive groups and media. Their most recent undercover video involved Brent Efron, identified as an EPA advisor, who admitted to what he termed as an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency. Efron stated that the EPA was “throwing gold bars off the Titanic,” implying that the agency was rapidly disbursing billions in climate-related grants to organizations, fearing that these funds might be curtailed or redirected under a new administration. This has sparked a debate on the ethics of such actions, especially in the context of governmental transitions.
EPA Advisor Brent Efron admits it: @EPA is throwing billions at ‘climate justice’ nonprofits to buffer against a Trump presidency—and then cashing in with a cushy post-gov job. The climate hustle just got exposed.
cc: @LeeZeldin
FULL REPORT: https://t.co/hUJAzwXtCE
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) December 3, 2024
The EPA has been a pivotal agency in U.S. environmental regulation. Its recent activities under the Biden administration have included significant focus on “environmental justice” (essentially “green” DEI) and climate change initiatives, with funding from acts like the Inflation Reduction Act. However, the timing of the alleged rapid disbursement of funds, as highlighted by Project Veritas, raises questions about the urgency and intent behind these financial decisions. Was this really about helping the environment, or were these insiders looting the American taxpayer? It appears cash is the “green” they care about most.
The footage has led to sharp criticism from conservative circles, with figures like Lee Zeldin, Trump’s pick for EPA administrator, expected to address these issues. Critics argue this represents an attempt to lock in progressive climate policies before they can be reversed. Supporters of the EPA’s actions argue that the urgency is justified due to the existential threat of “climate change,” suggesting that any delay in funding could lead to catastrophic climate emergencies.
The allegations of EPA advisors engaging in what might be seen as a strategic financial maneuver to ensure continuity of climate initiatives are troubling. The legality of preemptive funding could be scrutinized under federal ethics laws, particularly concerning the timing and motivation behind fund allocation. If confirmed, this could set a precedent for how agencies manage financial resources during political transitions, potentially affecting future administrations’ ability to control spending.
As the story unfolds, the focus will remain on whether these actions were within the legal and ethical boundaries of government operations, or if they constitute a misuse of taxpayer money for political advantage.