The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, firing as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, according to documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
The strategy is part of large-scale layoffs, known as a “reduction in force,” being planned by the Trump administration, which is intent on shrinking the federal work force. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the E.P.A., has said he wants to eliminate 65 percent of the agency’s budget. That would be a drastic reduction — one that experts said could hamper clean water and wastewater improvements, air quality monitoring, the cleanup of toxic industrial sites, and other parts of the agency’s mission.
The E.P.A.’s plan, which was presented to White House officials on Friday for review, calls for dissolving the agency’s largest department, the Office of Research and Development, and purging up to 75 percent of the people who work there.
The remaining staff members would be placed elsewhere within the E.P.A. “to provide increased oversight and align with administration priorities,” according to the language shared with The New York Times by staff members who work for Democrats on the House science committee.
Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that the agency “is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements” and stressed that changes had not been finalized.
“We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water and land for all Americans,” she said, adding, “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure the E.P.A. is as up to date and effective as ever.”
Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the science committee, said that without the Office of Research and Development, the E.P.A. would not be able to meet its legal obligation to use the “best available science” when writing regulations and considering policy. She also said that the office was created by congressional statute and that dissolving it would be illegal.
“Every decision E.P.A. makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut E.P.A. science,” Ms. Lofgren said in a statement. She said that the first Trump administration had weakened the agency’s scientific research in order to relax regulations against polluting industries. “Now this is their attempt to kill it for good,” she said.
The E.P.A.’s science office provides the independent research that undergirds virtually all of the agency’s environmental policies, from analyzing the risks of “forever chemicals” in drinking water to determining the best way to reduce fine particle pollution in the atmosphere. It has researched synthetic playground material made from discarded tires; found that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can contaminate drinking water; and measured the impact of wildfire smoke on public health. The office also helps state environmental agencies figure out how to address algae blooms, treat drinking water and more.
Its findings tend to support stronger regulations to protect against exposure to air pollution, hazardous chemicals and climate change. And that has made it a target of many industries. Eliminating the office would serve the Trump administration’s dual goals of reducing the size of government while potentially easing the regulation of the chemical and fossil fuel industries.
The science office was also criticized by Project 2025, a blueprint for overhauling the federal government that was produced by the Heritage Foundation and written by many who are serving in the Trump administration.
The chapter on the E.P.A. accuses the science office of being “precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.”
It calls for eliminating programs within the science office, in particular the Integrated Risk Information System, which evaluates the human health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and uses that information to form the basis for restrictions on their use. Industries regulated by the E.P.A. often push back against that research. A bill introduced by Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, and backed by industry groups seeks to prevent the E.P.A. from using the research.
“It is an assault on science,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who ran the E.P.A. office under the first Trump administration.
Shuttering the office would cost jobs across the country, particularly in places like North Carolina and Ada, Okla., two of the places where the agency operates major research labs, she said. In addition to chemists and biologists, the science office also employs physicians, nurses, hydrologists and experts who focus on plants, soils and wetlands.
Chris Frey, who led the Office of Research and Development under the Biden administration, said eliminating it would create a vacuum that would allow an administration to impose any policies it wanted to.
“It’s certainly convenient for certain stakeholders to have O.R.D. silenced,” Mr. Frey said.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said in a statement that it supported the E.P.A.’s having the “resources, technical staff and subject matter expertise needed for the agency to meet its statutory requirements.”
More than 40 former E.P.A. officials who served in Republican and Democratic administrations plan to send a letter on Tuesday to Mr. Zeldin warning that steep cuts will render the agency unable to meet its mission.
“Policy changes are to be expected from one administration to the next, but not the dismantling of E.P.A.,” the officials wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Times. “If the administration does not agree with the laws Congress has passed and the programs it has funded, it should work with Congress to seek changes, not unilaterally and recklessly freeze, delay or eliminate funding.”
The post Trump Administration Aims to Eliminate E.P.A.’s Scientific Research Arm appeared first on New York Times.
