Fotouhi, a Harvard-trained attorney and former Acting General Counsel at the EPA under the Trump administration, most recently worked at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. There, he represented clients across a broad spectrum of industries, including Chevron, Boeing, Ford, and International Paper. According to financial disclosures, he earned over $3.2 million in the year prior to his nomination.
At the heart of the controversy is whether Fotouhi can fairly oversee EPA programs and enforcement efforts that closely mirror the cases he once fought against. Environmental advocates cite his legal work defending clients in asbestos, PFAS contamination, Clean Water Act litigation, and challenges to air pollution standards.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a frequent critic of industry influence on environmental policy, publicly opposed the nomination, calling Fotouhi “the voice of the polluters” and stating that his appointment “undermines the credibility of the agency’s mission.”
Fotouhi has pledged to recuse himself from any regulatory matters tied to past clients within the legally required timeframe, but ethics watchdogs question whether such measures are enough given the breadth and depth of his corporate representation. Several organizations have already submitted formal requests for his recusal in upcoming PFAS rulemaking and enforcement decisions.
Fotouhi now holds authority over critical EPA offices, including enforcement, chemical safety, and regional management—many of which are directly engaged in regulating substances and practices he once defended in court.
His appointment comes at a time when the EPA is under increasing pressure to address climate resilience, industrial pollution, and the health impacts of hazardous chemicals. With litigation against PFAS manufacturers, revisions to asbestos regulations, and clean water enforcement all high on the agency’s 2025 agenda, stakeholders are watching closely.
Legal analysts note that Fotouhi’s deep knowledge of environmental law and agency procedure could streamline regulatory reviews—but could also temper aggressive rulemaking efforts that run counter to industry interests.
Supporters argue that Fotouhi’s legal expertise and prior government service uniquely qualify him for the role. Critics say his appointment signals a deeper alignment with deregulatory agendas that prioritize business certainty over environmental protection.
“Experience is not the issue,” said one environmental policy expert. “It’s whether that experience will be used to dismantle or defend the regulatory frameworks that protect public health.”
As the EPA advances major rulemakings on PFAS, methane emissions, and toxic substances, Fotouhi’s actions—and recusals—will likely serve as a litmus test for how far industry-aligned leadership can shape the future of environmental regulation without eroding public trust.
