The Trump administration is considering eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific research office and firing as many as 1,155 of its staff members, according to a document reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
The deliberations about dismantling the office, first reported by the New York Times, escalate the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the EPA. President Donald Trump said last month that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin was considering cutting 65 percent of the EPA’s workforce, though a White House official later clarified that the president was referring to a 65 percent cut in overall spending at the agency.
The document suggests that the Trump administration may abolish the Office of Research and Development, which conducts independent research on a wide range of environmental hazards, and fire up to 75 percent of its staff as part of large-scale layoffs known as a “reduction in force.”
“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 document states.
Asked for comment, an EPA spokeswoman said in an email: “EPA is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements. 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.”
More on the Trump administration
Trump, Putin to talk about ceasefire; Zelenskyy skeptical
Trump set to release JFK files with no redactions
It was war at the U.S. Institute of Peace when Musk team arrived
Keep track: Trump executive orders, plus legal challenges in WA
Our collected stories about the president and executive branch
The spokeswoman added that the New York Times reporting on the office was “false.” She did not respond to a follow-up question about what in the article was incorrect.
Former EPA officials criticized the plan, saying it would not only drain the agency of scientific expertise but also harm research facilities in states and districts represented by congressional Republicans.
“This is a wrecking ball assault on the science that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink from toxic chemicals and pollution,” Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who led the office during Trump’s first term, said in a statement. “Shuttering EPA’s science offices would take a chainsaw to the work of toxicologists, physicians, nurses and other experts across the country, particularly in places like North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Georgia, where the agency operates major research labs.”
“
This is a wrecking ball assault on the science that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink from toxic chemicals and pollution.”
— Statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who led the research office during Trump’s first term
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House Science Committee, said in a statement that Congress enshrined the EPA’s research office in law. “Eliminating it is illegal,” she said.
The research office helps run the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, which evaluates the health risks of hazardous chemicals. Its assessments have often justified stricter regulations, prompting pushback from the chemicals industry.
“It’s an office that runs some controversial programs, in particular IRIS,” said Dimitri Karakitsos, a partner at the law and lobbying firm Holland and Knight. “Should they really be doing these assessments? I don’t think it’s gutting the agency or the scientific process to say that the chemicals office should do science for the chemicals office.”
Kimberly Wise White, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that the industry group supports “EPA having the resources, technical staff and subject matter expertise needed for the Agency to meet its statutory requirements.”
This story was originally published at washingtonpost.com. Read it here.