The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists.
The strategy is part of a massive layoff known as “power reduction,” and is planned by the Trump administration, which aims to reduce the federal workforce. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said he wants to eliminate 65% of the agency's budget. That's a dramatic reduction. Experts said it could hinder clean water and wastewater improvements, monitor air quality, cleanse toxic industrial sites and other parts of the agency's mission.
The EPA's plan, presented to White House officials for review on Friday, calls for the agency to dissolve the agency's largest division, the Research and Development Bureau, and up to 75% of those working there.
The remaining staff will be located elsewhere within the EPA “increased surveillance and tailored to management priorities,” according to a language shared with the New York Times by staff working for Democrats at House Science Committee.
EPA spokesman Molly Vaseliou said in a statement that he is “inviting exciting steps as he enters the next phase of improving the organization,” stressing that the change has not been finalized.
“We are committed to improving our ability to deliver clean air, water and land to all Americans,” she said, “While no decisions have been made, we are listening to employees at all levels and gathering ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure that the EPA is more up-to-date and effective than ever.”
California's leader Zoe Lofgren, a top Democrat on the Scientific Committee, said without the Research and Development Bureau, the EPA would not be able to fulfill its legal obligation to use “available science” when writing regulations and considering policies. She also said the office was created by the law of Parliament and it was illegal to dissolve it.
“Every decision the EPA makes must promote protecting human health and the environment. If you hinder EPA science, that cannot happen,” Lofgren said in a statement. She said the first Trump administration undermined the institution's scientific research to ease restrictions on the polluting industry. “Now, this is their attempt to kill it forever,” she said.
The EPA's science office offers independent research that supports almost all of the agency's environmental policies, from analyzing the risks of “eternal chemicals” in drinking water to determining the best ways to reduce particulate pollution in the air. We are researching synthetic playgrounds made from discarded tires. It turns out that hydraulic fracturing or fracking can contaminate drinking water. They then measured the impact of wildfire smoke on public health. The office will also help state environmental agencies understand how to deal with algae flowers and how to treat drinking water.
The findings tend to support stronger regulations to protect against air pollution, dangerous chemicals and climate change exposure. And it has targeted it in many industries. Eliminating offices would help the Trump administration's dual goal of reducing government size while easing regulations on the chemical and fossil fuel industry.
The Science Bureau was also criticized by Project 2025. This is a blueprint for overhauling the federal government, produced by the Heritage Foundation and written by many people working in the Trump administration.
The EPA chapter accuss the Science Bureau of “preventive, bloated, inexplainable, closed, consequently driven, hostile to public and legislative inputs, and tends to pursue political goals rather than purely scientific goals.”
They call for the elimination of programs within science firms, particularly integrated risk information systems. This assesses the human health impact of exposure to toxic chemicals and uses that information to form the basis for limitations regarding its use. Industry regulated by the EPA often opposes its research. The bill, introduced by Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, and supported by industry groups, aims to prevent the EPA from using research.
“It's an attack on science,” said Jennifer Ohm Zavareta, who ran the EPA office under the original Trump administration.
Closing offices will cost employment across the country, particularly in places like North Carolina and Ada, Oklahoma, two of which agents run major labs, she said. In addition to chemists and biologists, the Department of Science also employs doctors, nurses, hydrologists and experts with a focus on plants, soil and wetlands.
Chris Frey, who headed the Research and Development Bureau under the Biden administration, said that by eliminating it, it would create a vacuum that would allow it to impose the policies it desires.
“It's certainly convenient for certain stakeholders to silence the ORD,” Frey said.
The American Council of Chemicals, representing chemical manufacturers, said in a statement that it supported the EPA having “the resources, technical staff and subject expertise necessary to meet statutory requirements.”
More than 40 former EPA officials who served in Republican and Democrat administrations are scheduled to send letters to Zeldin on Tuesday, warning that the sudden cuts will not allow the agency to meet its mission.
“A policy change is expected from one administration to the next, but not the dismantling of the EPA,” the official wrote in the letter. A copy was obtained by The Times. “If the administration does not agree to a program passed and funded by Congress, we must work with Congress to seek changes rather than unilaterally and recklessly freezing, delaying or eliminating funds.”
Challenge Island contributed a report from New York.
