Climate campaigners on Tuesday accused the Republican head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of a “calculated betrayal of public health and the environment” after House Democrats obtained documents outlining the possible elimination of the EPA’s science research office—whose work underpins the agency’s anti-pollution policies.
The Democratic staff on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee reviewed the proposal, which was shared with the White House last Friday and called for the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) to be eliminated as a national program office, with 50-75% of its 1,540 staffers dismissed and the rest reassigned to EPA positions that “align with administration priorities.”
The ORD employs chemists, biologists, doctors, nurses, and experts on wetlands and other issues who contribute to research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water; contamination in drinking water caused by fracking; the impact of wildfire smoke on public health; and other environmental matters. The New York Times reported that the proposed cuts—which follow President Donald Trump’s call to slash the EPA’s overall budget by 65%—would cost jobs at the agency’s major research labs in North Carolina and Oklahoma.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House science panel, told the Times that closing the office would mean the EPA was no longer meeting its legal obligation to use the “best available science” to draft regulations and policies.
“Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut EPA science,” Lofgren said, noting that the ORD was created by Congress and cannot be unilaterally dismantled by the executive branch.
The plan to eliminate the ORD “sells out our public health,” said the Federation of American Scientists.
During his campaign, Trump promised the fossil fuel industry he would work to slash regulations meant to protect public health. On Tuesday, Chitra Kumar, managing director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said making it harder for the government to “set protective health standards” is likely “exactly what this administration is aiming for.”
“The scientists and experts in this office conduct and review the best available science to set limits on pollution and regulate hazardous chemicals to keep the public safe,” said Kumar. “We’re talking about soot that worsens asthma and heart disease, carcinogenic ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water, and heat-trapping emissions driving climate change. The administration knows, and history shows, that industry will not regulate itself.”
With an EPA spokesperson saying Tuesday that “no decisions have been made yet,” Kumar said that “it’s paramount that the administration hear: This is not acceptable.”
“Everyone, including President Trump and his Cabinet’s children and grandchildren, would feel the consequences of this move, not to mention the most polluted communities, predominantly Black, Brown and low income, who would bear the brunt,” said Kumar. “Is the administration’s ideology and pledge to industries that strong that they are willing to put their own loved ones at risk?”
The potential closure of the ORD would represent another victory for the authors of Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint that called to shutter the Department of Education and impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients.
The agenda’s chapter on the EPA calls for the elimination of programs in the ORD and claims that the office is “precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.”
Project 2025’s authors have particularly called for the termination of the ORD’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which informs toxic chemical regulations by assessing their effects on human health. As ProPublica reported earlier this month, Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from using IRIS’ chemical assessments to underpin regulations and other policies.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents more than 190 corporations, called on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to disband IRIS earlier this year, and the Republican lawmaker who introduced a bill to end the program represents a district where formaldehyde maker Hexion has a plant.
The push to close the ORD, according to former official Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, is the result of a “multi-decade… attack on the risk-assessment process, in particular.”
Without the ORD and IRIS, Orme-Zavaleta told the Times, “the agency will not be fulfilling its mission, and people will not be protected. They will be at greater risk. The environment will be at greater risk.”
John Noel, deputy climate director for Greenpeace USA, said the push to close the ORD and end its risk assessment work suggests that Zeldin “seems to believe his job is to serve corporate polluters rather than the American people.”
“For decades, these EPA regulations have been a critical line of defense against harmful pollution, protecting public health, and tackling the climate crisis,” said Noel. “Yet even these safeguards have never been enough. This year alone, our country has been ravaged by extreme hurricanes, devastating wildfires, and record-breaking heat—in large part, consequences of pollution. Instead of holding these industries accountable, the EPA is giving them a free pass.”
“EPA exists to protect our health and environment—not to gut the very safeguards that protect us,” said Noel. “As the climate crisis grows, the agency must reverse this reckless course and recommit to its core mission: protecting people and not the economic interests of polluting corporations.”
This post was originally published on this site
