Last year, the Cornwall Alliance produced an open letter supporting Scott Pruitt’s nomination to become EPA Administrator. We rested our judgment on the facts that

• As Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt had demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation to require corporations—including the energy corporations so prominent in his state’s economy—to abide by environmental laws and regulations.
• He had publicly expressed his conviction that the EPA’s role is not to create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to implement the intent of that legislation and nothing more.
• He recognized that environmental policy should be determined by the people’s elected representatives, not by unelected, unaccountable members of the federal bureaucracy. He has also publicly opposed the abuse of the court system by use of “sue-and-settle” to reach sweetheart deals between the EPA and environmental advocacy groups.
• He had demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation.
• He was prepared to hear all sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA.
• Finally, as a committed evangelical Christian, Mr. Pruitt had an unbending commitment to human life and health, especially to the protection of the most vulnerable in society. Indeed, a large group of religious leaders, including presidents of some of America’s largest and most prestigious theological seminaries, had also written to in his support for that reason.

We were delighted that he was confirmed, and we have been delighted with his leadership of the EPA ever since.

In recent months, various reports have been made alleging that he was corrupt, that he had violated ethics rules, that he was serving his own personal interests and those of his family, and taking advantage of his office to do so. We have not found those reports convincing.

One of the most recent allegations is that Pruitt used EPA staff to help his wife find a job—which, if it had happened, would have been a violation of ethics rules. Cleta Mitchell, a political law attorney and partner in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner, LLP, just demolished that charge in an article in National Review that refutes others as well. To be specific, Mitchell, who is not employed by the EPA, writes:

While some EPA staff members may have taken it upon themselves to get involved in her job search, I was the person who was working with Marlyn Pruitt on a regular basis to help her find work that would suit her skills and would not violate government ethics rules. As a lawyer who deals with executive and congressional ethics regulations, I was and am well aware of the requirements. We were mindful at all times of the need to ensure that any work she undertook was within the ethics rules, and it absolutely has been.

Mitchell points out that the New York Times reported that Pruitt had used his influence as EPA Administrator to get his daughter admitted to the University of Virginia law school—only she was admitted before President Trump was elected, making that impossible.

In response to criticism that Pruitt flies first class on federal business, she explains,

But he did so amid well-documented security concerns. The viciousness of the death threats against Pruitt are real, and his security detail has provided to Congress its review of the threats against him and their conclusion that security for this Trump official was not going to be easy. Or cheap.

Another complaint was that Pruitt had gotten a sweet deal on a rental home when he moved to Washington—but it turned out that what he was renting was only a single room, not a whole apartment, and the rate was normal for the neighborhood.

There have been other complaints as well, but we are convinced that they are either false, grossly exaggerated, or without basis in applicable government ethics rules. Deroy Murdock handles many of them effectively in an article in Townhall.com.

We’re glad to stand by our initial estimation of Scott Pruitt as a man of integrity. And we’re glad he’s moving the EPA in the right direction.