Trump Administration’s EPA Cuts Threaten Science, Public Health, and Environmental Protections
Trump signed his first executive order in October 2019 which started his war on environmental regulation. Source: [Bloomberg Law]
The Trump administration has initiated significant budget cuts and restructuring plans for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), moves that could have long-term consequences for the agency's research capabilities and environmental protection plans. The proposal targets essential environmental monitoring programs, scientific research, and enforcement of regulations. Among the hardest-hit areas were climate change initiatives, air and water quality programs, and hazardous waste cleanup efforts. These budgetary constraints have forced the agency to downsize staff, eliminate certain research grants, and scale back enforcement actions against environmental violators. Driven by the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda, these measures have sparked widespread concern among environmentalists, scientists, and policymakers. Besides the proposed elimination of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the budget cut has also led to potential layoffs affecting over 1,000 scientists, including chemists, biologists, and toxicologists.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has announced a series of deregulatory actions, describing them as "the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen." These actions aim to reduce regulatory costs and stimulate economic growth by reconsidering regulations on power plants, the oil and gas industry, and mercury and air toxics standards, among others. However, numerous climate advocacy groups and researchers predict that the cost of living in the United States will rise, with car prices expected to surge by $12,000 as a result of Trump’s tariff wars. Critics argue that these rollbacks prioritize corporate interests over environmental safety, potentially leading to increased pollution, nationally compromised drinking water, and exacerbated climate impacts. Former EPA administrators have expressed serious concerns, with Gina McCarthy labeling the day as "the most disastrous in EPA history" and William K. Reilly calling it a "catastrophe." Due to all of this criticism towards the demolition of environmental regulation, many advocacy groups and climate lawyers are expecting to see the EPA fighting many lawsuits in court.
The proposed budget cuts include a 65% reduction, which would necessitate significant staff reductions in areas such as air and water quality monitoring. Additionally with the environmental deregulations in place, many current scientists and researchers are already demoralized, which will make the EPA’s plans even harder to follow through. The plan involves dissolving the ORD and reassigning remaining staff to other parts of the agency, a move that critics argue will jeopardize public health and environmental protections. Furthermore, the agency plays a pivotal role in conducting and funding scientific studies that inform policy decisions on air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and climate change. Reducing research funding not only undermines the agency’s ability to assess environmental risks accurately but also limits access to data that state and local governments rely on for public health protections.
The BP West Coast Products oil refinery in Carson, California – an image of American Industrialization. Source: [Independent]
Additionally, the administration has announced the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, effective immediately upon notification. The Great Lakes region and states like Connecticut have already voiced alarm over these developments, raising concerns about the long-term, nationwide consequences for environmental policy and public well-being. The reduction in scientific research and environmental oversight could disproportionately harm marginalized communities, leading to increased rates of heart attacks, respiratory diseases, and other health issues, while also exacerbating the climate crisis. The proposed changes encompass 31 measures aimed at dismantling pollution controls for power plants, oil and gas refineries, chemical plants, cars and trucks, factories, and other industries. Without adequate funding, the EPA’s ability to enforce existing regulations diminishes, allowing many polluting industries more leeway to operate without stringent environmental safeguards.
As debates over the EPA’s funding and role continue, the broader implications of these budget cuts remain uncertain. While proponents of the cuts argue that they are necessary to reduce government spending and eliminate regulatory burdens on businesses, opponents emphasize the importance of maintaining a robust environmental protection framework. The future of the EPA’s effectiveness will likely depend on congressional decisions and public advocacy efforts aimed at preserving environmental health and sustainability. As these policy changes unfold, the balance between economic growth and environmental protection remains a contentious issue, with significant implications for public health and the environment in the years to come.