By E. Fletcher McClellan

Hardly a day goes by without US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt being accused of committing an illegal or unethical act.

The latest revelation came from the New York Times, citing EPA emails indicating that, contrary to Pruitt's public statements, he was pressured extensively by a lobbyist from whom Pruitt was renting a DC apartment at the sweetheart rate of $50 a night.

E. Fletcher McClellan (PennLive file photo)

This came on top of a report that Pruitt was being investigated for firing or demoting EPA whistle-blowers who questioned his need for 24-hour security protection from a 20-person detail, costing taxpayers $4.6 million so far.

In fact, there are 13 federal investigations of alleged misconduct by Pruitt, including use of aides to purchase personal items and inquire about a Chick-Fil-A franchise for his wife, spending $43,000 for a soundproof phone booth, racking up large travel expenses, improperly meeting with industry groups, and acquiring $3000 of "tactical" pants and polos.

The catalog of Pruitt's offenses is so remarkable that he has become a verb for pilfering pratfalls, as in "I pruitted a pack of gum from the Sheetz while two cashiers and a MTO sandwich artist were watching."

Why does Scott Pruitt still have a job in government?

Simply put, he is carrying out President Trump's agenda and Trump likes him.

There are numerous examples of government leaders who were highly principled but failed for lack of perceived technical or political competence.

President Jimmy Carter was one such case and former FBI Director James Comey, recently chastised by the Department of Justice Inspector General for overly politicizing the Clinton email investigation, is another.

By contrast, Pruitt has managed to stay in office this long, despite his ethical shortcomings, because he is aggressively dismantling the size and power of EPA.

In just 18 months Pruitt has cancelled or tried to undo Obama-era regulations that attempted to expand the coverage of the Clean Water Act, calculate economic and social costs of toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases, and increase fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles.

Under Pruitt, the EPA advocated repeal of Obama's Clean Power Plan and American withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Moreover, Pruitt removed university scientists from advisory panels and replaced them with industry-friendly appointees. He purged mentions of climate change from the EPA website.

Pruitt's defenders argue that there is nothing wrong with pursuing pro-business policies, and his coziness with corporations is no different ethically from the Obama administration's close relationship with the Sierra Club.

Environmentalists counter that Pruitt is pushing a pro-polluter agenda, endangering public health and putting the planet at risk.

Regardless of how Pruitt is viewed inside the beltway, he only needs the support of one person.

Fortunately for the EPA chief, he works for a president who is willing to overlook moral or legal concerns if the job is getting done.

Dismissing Pruitt for personal grift would only illuminate Trump's own alleged misdeeds, whether it is profiteering from influence-peddling efforts of foreign governments or paying off mistresses.

Besides, Pruitt is hardly the sole malefactor in the Trump administration. The current Secretaries of Treasury, Commerce, and Interior have all been accused of using their government positions for personal benefit.

To be fair, Trump sacked two Cabinet members - Tom Price at HHS and David Shulkin at VA - presumably for ethical violations but more likely for lack of performance and loyalty. Trump associated Price with failure to repeal Obamacare and Shulkin openly disputed the president's preference for privatizing VA medical care.

By comparison, Pruitt has gone out of his way to praise Trump. The president returned the love earlier this month, saying the EPA director has done a "fantastic" job.

Undoubtedly, scandal has taken a toll on Pruitt's support.

Recently Laura Ingraham of Fox News, as well as several conservative publications, called for his resignation.

We may see a rare exertion of oversight from the Republican Congress. Upset at EPA's lukewarm efforts to promote ethanol, US Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa said Pruitt was "about as swampy as you get here in Washington, D.C."

In addition, Pruitt's haste to deregulate may well backfire. At least a half-dozen EPA actions were delayed by the federal courts for the agency's failure to conduct required analyses or follow requirements for public comment.

If and when it becomes clear that Pruitt can no longer govern effectively, Trump may finally fire him. Surely there are climate skeptics with less ethical baggage who can be named as replacements.

Or, Pruitt may decide to call it quits. He is reported to have ambitions for high office in his home state of Oklahoma, where his talent for enraging liberals may be an asset.

Furthermore, Pruitt has probably had enough of DC. It is said that his ham-handed efforts to monetize his position stemmed from the high cost of living in the nation's capital and the burden of trying to match the lavish life style of fellow Trump appointees.

On the other hand, Pruitt may hang on to his job, hoping to bargain his way out of a federal indictment.

In the meantime, given the problems Trump advisors have had getting service at Washington-area restaurants, Pruitt will be lucky to find a vending machine.

PennLive Opinion contributor E. Fletcher McClellan is a political science professor at Elizabethtown College. His work appears biweekly.