SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Eliminating EPA Office of Research and Development Would Harm Public Health and the Environment
Statement by Chitra Kumar, Climate and Energy Program managing director
The potential elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development, reported by news outlets, would take a huge toll on public health and be a massive giveaway to polluting industries, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). These destructive actions are reportedly part of the Trump administration’s mass layoff strategy.
Below is a statement by Chitra Kumar, the managing director of the Climate and Energy Program at UCS.
“It would be extremely difficult to set protective health standards without the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and I think that’s exactly what this administration is aiming for. I am not sure how the EPA could fulfill its legal mandate of public health protection if this plan goes forward.
“The scientists and experts in this office conduct and review the best available science to set limits on pollution and regulate hazardous chemicals to keep the public safe. We’re talking about soot that worsens asthma and heart disease, carcinogenic ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water, and heat-trapping emissions driving climate change. The administration knows, and history shows, that industry will not regulate itself.
“The EPA is claiming that this is not a done deal yet, so it’s paramount that the administration hear: This is not acceptable. Everyone, including President Trump and his cabinet’s children and grandchildren, would feel the consequences of this move, not to mention the most polluted communities, predominantly Black, Brown and low income, who would bear the brunt. Is the administration’s ideology and pledge to industries that strong that they are willing to put their own loved ones at risk?”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Judge Rules Musk's DOGE Acted Unconstitutionally by Dismantling USAID
"This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality," said Norm Eisen of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Mar 18, 2025
A U.S. judge on Tuesday barred the Trump administration-created Department of Government Efficiency from taking "any actions relating" to the federal international aid agency it began pushing to dismantle in February, and said "special government employee" Elon Musk likely acted unconstitutionally "in multiple ways" by moving to shut down the agency.
In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of 26 current and former employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), one of the earliest targets of Musk's push to slash government spending and fire tens of thousands of civil servants. Chuang ordered DOGE to restore email, payment, and system access to all current USAID employees.
The workers are being represented by the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and have accused Musk of acting unconstitutionally.
"Today's decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the United States government, and the Constitution," said Norm Eisen, executive chair of the group. "They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but also the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality."
Chuang is one of several federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump and Musk's actions ostensibly aimed at improving "efficiency" and eliminating waste in the federal government; other judges have blocked the president's freezing of federal grants and loans, his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and his order attacking diversity, equity, and inclusiveness programs.
But Chuang's ruling reportedly marks the first time a judge has ruled that Musk should likely be required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate under the Constitution's appointments clause.
"The record of his activities to date establishes that his role has been and will continue to be as the leader of DOGE, with the same duties and degree of continuity as if he was formally in that position,'" wrote Chuang.
The State Democracy Defenders Fund noted Tuesday that "the Constitution's appointments clause only gives those powers to people nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, neither of which applies to Musk. Since Musk's role as the de facto DOGE administrator constitutes the performance of significant governmental duties that should only be handled by duly appointed officers of the United States, the plaintiffs ultimately seek a permanent injunction preventing Musk and his team from continuing their roles."
The Trump administration has claimed Musk is only an adviser to the president and is not the administrator of DOGE, which has spearheaded efforts to shut down agencies including the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and to fire federal employees across agencies.
"If a president could escape appointments clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president's priorities to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the appointments clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality," the judge said.
Chuang rejected the claim that DOGE's actions are not being directed by Musk, saying the Tesla CEO and Trump megadonor appeared to have been involved in closing the CFPB and to "have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials."
"The evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants' sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an adviser, Musk made the decisions to shut down USAID's headquarters and website even though he 'lacked the authority to make that decision,'" Chuang said, quoting an argument from the Trump administration.
Mimi Marziani of Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC, which helped defend the USAID workers in court, said the plaintiffs "are regular Americans who have faithfully served our country and the public good but have had their lives turned upside down because Musk wants to play master of the universe."
"We are proud to stand up for the plaintiffs and the Constitution," said Marziani, "which is designed to guard against these very sorts of abuses because our nation depends upon a government for all, not for a few."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Acceptable': Trump EPA Teases Evisceration of Scientific Research Office
"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," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Mar 18, 2025
Climate campaigners on Tuesday accused the Republican head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of a "calculated betrayal of public health and the environment" after House Democrats obtained documents outlining the possible elimination of the EPA's science research office—whose work underpins the agency's anti-pollution policies.
The Democratic staff on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee reviewed the proposal, which was shared with the White House last Friday and called for the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) to be eliminated as a national program office, with 50-75% of its 1,540 staffers dismissed and the rest reassigned to EPA positions that "align with administration priorities."
The ORD employs chemists, biologists, doctors, nurses, and experts on wetlands and other issues who contribute to research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or "forever chemicals," in drinking water; contamination in drinking water caused by fracking; the impact of wildfire smoke on public health; and other environmental matters. The New York Times reported that the proposed cuts—which follow President Donald Trump's call to slash the EPA's overall budget by 65%—would cost jobs at the agency's major research labs in North Carolina and Oklahoma.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House science panel, told the Times that closing the office would mean the EPA was no longer meeting its legal obligation to use the "best available science" to draft regulations and policies.
"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," Lofgren said, noting that the ORD was created by Congress and cannot be unilaterally dismantled by the executive branch.
The plan to eliminate the ORD "sells out our public health," said the Federation of American Scientists.
During his campaign, Trump promised the fossil fuel industry he would work to slash regulations meant to protect public health. On Tuesday, Chitra Kumar, managing director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said making it harder for the government to "set protective health standards" is likely "exactly what this administration is aiming for."
"The scientists and experts in this office conduct and review the best available science to set limits on pollution and regulate hazardous chemicals to keep the public safe," said Kumar. "We're talking about soot that worsens asthma and heart disease, carcinogenic 'forever chemicals' in drinking water, and heat-trapping emissions driving climate change. The administration knows, and history shows, that industry will not regulate itself."
With an EPA spokesperson saying Tuesday that "no decisions have been made yet," Kumar said that "it's paramount that the administration hear: This is not acceptable."
"Everyone, including President Trump and his Cabinet's children and grandchildren, would feel the consequences of this move, not to mention the most polluted communities, predominantly Black, Brown and low income, who would bear the brunt," said Kumar. "Is the administration’s ideology and pledge to industries that strong that they are willing to put their own loved ones at risk?"
The potential closure of the ORD would represent another victory for the authors of Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint that called to shutter the Department of Education and impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients.
The agenda's chapter on the EPA calls for the elimination of programs in the ORD and claims that the office is "precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals."
Project 2025's authors have particularly called for the termination of the ORD's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which informs toxic chemical regulations by assessing their effects on human health. As ProPublicareported earlier this month, Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from using IRIS' chemical assessments to underpin regulations and other policies.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents more than 190 corporations, called on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to disband IRIS earlier this year, and the Republican lawmaker who introduced a bill to end the program represents a district where formaldehyde maker Hexion has a plant.
The push to close the ORD, according to former official Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, is the result of a "multi-decade... attack on the risk-assessment process, in particular."
Without the ORD and IRIS, Orme-Zavaleta told the Times, "the agency will not be fulfilling its mission, and people will not be protected. They will be at greater risk. The environment will be at greater risk."
John Noel, deputy climate director for Greenpeace USA, said the push to close the ORD and end its risk assessment work suggests that Zeldin "seems to believe his job is to serve corporate polluters rather than the American people."
"For decades, these EPA regulations have been a critical line of defense against harmful pollution, protecting public health, and tackling the climate crisis," said Noel. "Yet even these safeguards have never been enough. This year alone, our country has been ravaged by extreme hurricanes, devastating wildfires, and record-breaking heat—in large part, consequences of pollution. Instead of holding these industries accountable, the EPA is giving them a free pass."
“EPA exists to protect our health and environment—not to gut the very safeguards that protect us," said Noel. "As the climate crisis grows, the agency must reverse this reckless course and recommit to its core mission: protecting people and not the economic interests of polluting corporations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Delusional': Trump Calls for Reinvigorating Domestic Use of US Coal
"Donald Trump is not concerned with Americans' health or economic wellbeing. He is only concerned with helping out his billionaire buddies in the fossil fuel industry," said one climate advocate.
Mar 18, 2025
After U.S. President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social on Monday night that he is ordering his administration "to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL," a leader at the grassroots environmental group Sierra Club quickly hit back, calling the move "completely delusional."
Trump said he was announcing the move as a means to counter China's economic edge. The announcement comes "after years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants," Trump wrote.
It was not immediately clear what Trump's directive was referring to or how his announcement on social media would impact U.S. policy, according to Bloomberg.
"There is no such thing as clean coal. There is only coal that pollutes our air and water so severely that nearly half a million Americans have died prematurely from coal in the last two decades," said Sierra Club director of climate policy Patrick Drupp in a statement Tuesday. "Donald Trump is not concerned with Americans' health or economic wellbeing. He is only concerned with helping out his billionaire buddies in the fossil fuel industry."
Trump's cabinet includes a number figures who are friendly to the fossil fuel industry, such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was a fracking industry CEO, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a known ally of oil and gas companies.
On his first day in office, Trump declared a national energy emergency to ensure "an affordable and reliable domestic supply of energy," called for expedited "permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska," and withdrew the United States from the the world's main climate pact.
The U.S. is mulling using emergency authority to bring coal-fired plants back online and halt others from shutting, Burgum toldBloomberg Television in an interview last week.
"Under the national energy emergency, which President Trump has declared, we've got to keep every coal plant open," Burgum said while at the energy sector gathering CERAWeek. "And if there had been units at a coal plant that have been shut down, we need to bring those back."
Meanwhile, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin earlier this month announced a new effort to rollback a host of EPA regulations, including some that will impact coal producers.
The coal mining company Peabody Energy saw their stock rise 3.5% after Trump's Monday post on social media about "clean coal," according to Tuesday morning reporting from Schaeffer's Investment Research.
As of 2023, coal accounted for 16.2% of U.S. electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That year, 21.4% came from renewables.
In its statement released on Tuesday, Sierra Club took issue with Trump's assertion that investing in coal has provided an economic boost to other countries. "Trump refers to the 'Economic advantage' that burning coal has afforded other nations. In reality, renewable energy is quickly becoming more affordable and reliable than coal," they wrote.
In 2023, the think tank Energy Innovation Policy & Technology released an analysis which found that 99% of coal plants are more expensive to run compared to replacing their generation capacity with either solar or wind power, when taking into account credits that were made available through the Inflation Reduction Act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular