Scott Pruitt Knew Exactly Who to Blame for His Ethical Lapses

Taking a page from the Trump playbook.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt walked in smiling when he arrived for his House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA budget but was dominated instead by questions about his ethics and conduct during his 16 months at the agency.

Pruitt knew he’d face questions not just from Democrats, but from his own party, about his cozy ties with energy lobbyists, his alleged retaliation against EPA staff, his decision to block press from covering his agency, and his recent move to limit the scientific studies the EPA can rely on for its regulations—among dozens of other scandals. Even his staunchest ally, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), expressed concern about reports of his behavior as Oklahoma attorney general. 

So how did Pruitt defend himself? While he admitted that he is ultimately responsible for what goes on at the EPA, he shifted blame to his critics and the media and yet never specifically refuted any of the charges in his broad-brush rebuke of the reporting.

“Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing so because they want to derail the president’s agenda,” Pruitt told the lawmakers. “I’m not going to let that happen.”

Pruitt went on to criticize the “tough media reports” the past few weeks. “I have nothing to hide as it relates to how I run the agency in past 16 months. Facts are facts and fiction is fiction. A lie doesn’t become true just because it’s on the front page.” 

Over the course of his tenure, Pruitt has been engaged in a continuous battle against the press with tactics of limiting media access that echoes the approach from the White House. The most recent example was on Tuesday, when Pruitt announced a science rule that has major implications for EPA regulations. Pruitt and the conservatives who filled the audience at the EPA praised the announcement as a step forward for transparency, while blocking reporters from attending the live-streamed event.

In his opening statement, subcommittee ranking member Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) dug into Pruitt’s “political ambitions, your tendency to abuse your position for personal gain,” and “a lack of respect for American taxpayers.” Republicans were slightly less critical of the administrator, praising his policy decisions such as his recent move to limit science at the EPA. Still, they couldn’t overlook the hard evidence and documents showing his expensive habits. 

“It is no secret that there have been many stories in the press about the management and operations of the Agency and your dealings with potentially regulated sectors,” subcommittee chair Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said. “I consider much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one this committee cannot ignore.” House Energy and Commerce Chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.) expressed similar concerns: “I am concerned that the good progress being made on the policy front is being undercut by allegations about your management of the Agency and use of its resources. These issues are too persistent to ignore and I know many members are looking of more clarity from you today.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend