EPA Plans to Dismantle Scientific Research Office, Sparking Outrage Over Environmental and Public Health Risks

Introduction: A Plan to Gut Science at the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing intense criticism over its proposed plan to eliminate its primary scientific research office, a move that could result in the layoffs of over 1,000 scientists and support staff. These employees play a critical role in providing the scientific foundation for regulations that protect human health and the environment from pollutants. According to documents reviewed by Democratic staff on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, up to 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists, and other scientists—representing 75% of the research program’s staff—could lose their jobs. Critics argue that this move undermines the EPA’s core mission to safeguard public health and the environment, while the Trump administration frames it as part of a broader effort to shrink the federal government and improve efficiency.

The Proposed Layoffs and Their Implications

The layoffs are part of a larger push by the Trump administration to reduce the EPA’s budget by 65%, as announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. Such drastic cuts would necessitate significant staffing reductions across key agency functions, including air and water quality monitoring, natural disaster response, and lead abatement. The plan also includes dissolving the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the EPA’s main scientific arm, which currently employs 1,540 staff members. According to internal memos, between 50% and 75% of these employees will not be retained. The remaining staff would be reassigned to other parts of the agency to align with administration priorities, specifically increasing oversight. The plan has already been presented to the White House for review.

Outrage Over the Dismantling of Environmental Science

Critics, including Democratic lawmakers and environmental advocacy groups, have blasted the plan as an illegal and dangerous attack on the EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment. California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House Science Committee, called the elimination of the research office illegal, as it was established by Congress. She emphasized that the EPA cannot fulfill its legal obligation to use the best available science without the ORD. Lofgren accused President Trump and Elon Musk, who now heads the Department of Government Efficiency, of prioritizing the interests of polluters over the health and safety of Americans. She also criticized the administration for politicizing and distorting science during Trump’s first term, calling this move an attempt to “kill science for good.”

The Role of the Office of Research and Development

The Office of Research and Development is central to the EPA’s mission, providing critical scientific research that informs policies and regulations. For example, the office conducted essential testing that revealed high levels of harmful “forever chemicals” in the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, posing a threat to drinking water. The office’s work is supposed to be insulated from political influence, focusing on impartial science, such as risk assessments for dangerous chemicals. Without this research, the EPA would lose its ability to make informed decisions about environmental and public health protections.

Response from the EPA and the Broader Administration

EPA spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou downplayed the significance of the plan, stating that no final decisions have been made. She framed the proposed changes as part of “organizational improvements” aimed at making the agency more efficient and effective. However, critics argue that the plan reflects a broader hostility toward science within the Trump administration. Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, described the administration as “incredibly hostile to science,” pointing to its consistent efforts to undermine scientific research and disregard its role in policymaking.

The Broader Implications of Gutting the EPA’s Science Program

The proposed cuts to the EPA’s scientific research office have far-reaching implications for environmental protection and public health. By dismantling its science program, the agency risks losing the expertise and resources needed to address pressing environmental challenges, from climate change to toxic pollution. Environmental advocacy groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, have called on Congress to intervene, urging lawmakers to protect the EPA’s scientific capabilities. They argue that without these scientists, Americans will lose access to clean air, water, and land, and the country will be less equipped to address the growing threats to its environment. The fight over the EPA’s research office is not just about jobs—it’s about the future of environmental protection in the United States.