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
zoe lofgren
'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
'Utterly Ridiculous': Biden DOJ Aims to Bypass Congress to Renew Spying Power
"The administration has decided to short-circuit the legislative process and ask the FISA Court for an extra year of surveillance without any reforms at all," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Mar 01, 2024
Privacy advocates responded with outrage Thursday to news that the Biden administration has decided to pursue a year-long extension of warrantless spying authority in court rather than working with Congress to enact reforms that are popular across party lines.
The decision, first reported by The New York Times, came after the House Republican leadership last month abruptly canceled planned votes on proposed changes to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
While Section 702 is supposed to only allow U.S. agencies to spy on non-citizens located outside the country, the communications of American journalists, activists, and others are regularly collected under the surveillance authority, sparking widespread support for an overhaul.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a leading advocate of Section 702 reform, said in a statement Thursday that "it is utterly ridiculous that the Biden administration and the Justice Department would rather risk the long-term future of an important surveillance authority than support a single meaningful reform to protect Americans' rights."
"A broad bipartisan, bicameral coalition agrees that FISA Section 702 should be reauthorized with reforms to protect the rights of Americans," said Wyden. "Yet rather than seriously engage with congressional reformers, the administration has decided to short-circuit the legislative process and ask the FISA Court for an extra year of surveillance without any reforms at all."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) also expressed alarm over the Biden administration's decision, saying it is "extraordinary that, despite broad support for substantial reform, the Department of Justice is discreetly attempting to bypass the legislative process to secure another surveillance reauthorization."
"This is unacceptable," Lofgren added, "and completely undermines the authority of the Congress."
Section 702 authority is set to expire in April. The Biden administration has claimed that allowing Section 702 to lapse would create a "dangerous gap" in data collection.
"The government isn't trying to prevent a gap; it's trying to sneak through an additional year of surveillance without congressional approval."
Last month, the House was supposed to vote on amendments to a compromise Section 702 bill—and reform advocates believed they could secure passage of meaningful reforms to the spying authority.
But House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called off the votes shortly after Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), issued a statement warning of a "serious national security threat"—an obvious ploy to derail momentum for Section 702 reform.
It later became clear that Turner's statement pertained to U.S. intelligence indicating that Russia has made progress on a space-based nuclear weapon—something members of Congress have known about for years. The intelligence was reportedly gathered using Section 702 authority.
Turner's gambit prompted calls for his resignation from the HPSCI chairmanship, with advocacy groups accusing the Ohio Republican of exploiting his privileged access to intelligence to "scare" his fellow lawmakers "in an effort to undermine reform of warrantless surveillance laws."
The Times reported earlier this week that the U.S. Justice Department has informed congressional leaders of its decision to seek a one-year extension of Section 702 powers.
Reform advocates want, at the very least, to require U.S. agencies to obtain a warrant before collecting the communications data of an American—a change the Biden administration opposes. Reformers are also working to close the so-called "data broker loophole," which allows government agencies to purchase Americans' information from commercial data brokers.
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Times that the Biden administration's effort to extend the spying powers through the FISA Court "shows the government's utter contempt for the role of Congress and the democratic process when it comes to FISA and Section 702."
"The government isn't trying to prevent a gap; it's trying to sneak through an additional year of surveillance without congressional approval," said Goitein.
In addition to opposing a Section 702 extension through the FISA Court, civil liberties advocates are warning against any attempt to include an extension in must-pass government funding legislation.
"Bypassing this process by slipping an extension of the law into a must-pass funding bill would demonstrate a blatant disregard for the civil liberties and civil rights of the American people," a coalition of civil society organizations wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supporters of Government Surveillance Reform Act Aim to End 'Litany of Abuse'
"For too long, federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have had nearly unchecked access to Americans' personal data," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
Nov 07, 2023
Answering years of demands for significant reforms, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled a highly anticipated bill designed to crack down on the federal government's "disturbing" misuse of surveillance authorities.
The Government Surveillance Reform Act (GSRA)—led by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) along with Reps. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)—takes aim at authorities including Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which will expire at the end of 2023 unless reauthorized by Congress.
Section 702 allows warrantless surveillance of electronic communications targeting foreigners located outside the United States, to acquire foreign intelligence information. However, Americans' data is often collected too, and court documents have revealed "chilling" abuse, particularly at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
"Americans know that it is possible to confront our country's adversaries ferociously without throwing our constitutional rights in the trash can. But for too long surveillance laws have not kept up with changing times," Wyden said in a statement.
"Our bill continues to give government agencies broad authority to collect information on threats at home and abroad, including the ability to act quickly in emergencies and settle up with the court later," he added. "But it creates much stronger protections for the privacy of law-abiding Americans, and restores the warrant protections that are at the heart of the Fourth Amendment."
Specifically, as a fact sheet from the sponsors details, the bill renews the controversial section of FISA for four years but also "reforms 702 to protect Americans from warrantless backdoor searches, ensures that foreigners aren't targeted as a pretext for spying on the Americans with whom they are communicating, and prohibits the collection of domestic communications."
The bill would also extend similar reforms to spying activities under Executive Order 12333, ban the government from buying Americans' data from brokers, and require warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens' location data, web browsing, and search records, including artificial intelligence assistants such as Alexa and Siri.
"It would be unwise for members of Congress to greenlight another major surveillance reauthorization without carefully considering and enacting surveillance reform measures," Lofgren argued. "For too long, federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have had nearly unchecked access to Americans' personal data."
"Our bipartisan, bicameral comprehensive and calibrated legislation provides reform solutions sought for decades," she continued. "With widespread support from across the political spectrum the Government Surveillance Reform Act would dramatically curb surveillance abuse and protect Americans' civil liberties, while preserving national security."
In addition to co-sponsors from both parties, the bill is backed by dozens of rights groups—including Demand Progress, whose policy director Sean Vitka declared that "this is the most significant opportunity for protecting Americans from warrantless government surveillance in generations, and the GSRA rises to the challenge."
Other groups supporting the GSRA include the ACLU, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, and Free Press Action.
Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the CDT's Security and Surveillance Project celebrated that the bill would "end the litany of abuse of FISA 702 we've seen year after year and close serious loopholes, all while preserving the operational value needed for national security."
Free Press Action vice president of policy Matt Wood similarly applauded the bill as "a true milestone in the effort to rein in abuse of foreign intelligence gathering tools," and highlighted that when agencies misuse such tools, "they disproportionately target people of color, recent immigrants, members of religious groups, and dissidents."
Given the history of "countless abuses," ACLU senior policy counsel Kia Hamadanchy concluded that "Congress should not vote to reauthorize Section 702 without the critical reforms contained in this bill."
Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Program, pointed out that "if passed, this would be the most significant surveillance reform legislation since FISA itself," which was enacted in 1978.
Goitein and her colleague Noah Chauvin also stressed that there is still room for improvement, explaining at Just Security on Tuesday that the legislation "does not include all of the reforms sought by the Brennan Center (where we both work) and a cross-partisan coalition of 30 other privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations. Most notably, the bill does not narrow the scope of foreign intelligence surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular