Hundreds of EPA scientists expected to be fired in more Trump administration cuts
The Trump administration plans to eliminate a major research body of the Environmental Protection Agency, possibly cutting more than 1,000 employees, according to documents on the government's reduction in force agenda.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development would be eliminated "as an EPA National Program Office," documents reviewed by Democratic staffers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee say. A portion of the documents was shared with CBS News.
"Currently, the Office of Research and Development has 1,540 positions (excluding special government employees and public health officers), of which we anticipate a majority (50-75%) will not be retained," the documents say.
The documents also state that the EPA will request an exemption from the Office of Personnel Management to reduce the required 60-day notice of termination to a 30-day notice period for impacted employees.
"EPA is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements," EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement to CBS News. "We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans. While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), ranking member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, chastised the decision to eliminate the research office.
"EPA's Office of Research and Development is in statute. Eliminating it is illegal. 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," she said in a statement.
The Office of Research and Development is a "scientific research arm of the EPA," according to its website, that conducts critical research to "safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants." More than 1,500 employees, including scientists and researchers, are dispersed across the country at 11 different locations, but the bulk are based at the EPA's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at a large scientific facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The research touches a range of issues from PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals," to water-bourne diseases, soot in the air and environmental factors that contribute to childhood asthma, said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the former principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development under the first Trump administration.
"Without this research, we would not have known about PFAS in the environment," Orme-Zavaleta, who is now retired, told CBS News. "By eliminating ORD and restricting what the EPA can do, we're no longer using the best available science and people's health will be at risk."
Earlier this month, President Trump and EPA administrator Lee Zeldin indicated they plan to reduce the agency's budget by 65%, leading many environmental and health organizations to sound the alarm that such a reduction could impact public safety. The agency previously eliminated roughly 200 employees whose work related to environmental justice across its headquarters and regional offices to comply with Mr. Trump's executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Zeldin also delivered a flurry of announcements last week rolling back 31 environmental regulations and said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that deregulating environmental policy will "roll back trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and hidden taxes. … Our actions will also reignite American manufacturing, spreading economic benefits to communities."
But many experts argue such efforts do not enable the EPA to perform its primary role to protect public health and the environment.
Orme-Zavaleta said she is concerned that eliminating the Office of Research and Development and staff is an overture to industry groups for the EPA to align science research that may support a desired outcome that supersedes public health.
"I think special interest groups are heavily involved in this," she said. "One aspect of what ORD does is develop risk assessments and sometimes that doesn't provide the level of guidance that a program or special interest might want."
"The only reason to get rid of all the scientists is if you plan to replace the best science with biased decisions driven by politics and favoritism," she added.
