WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a major reorganization, which includes the proposed elimination of its scientific research office. This move puts the jobs of over 1,000 scientists and employees at risk—individuals whose expertise supports the creation of policies that safeguard public health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.
According to a review by Democratic staff on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, up to 1,155 positions could potentially be cut. The roles affected include those of chemists, biologists, and toxicologists, constituting approximately 75% of the research program’s existing staff.
These proposed layoffs align with the Trump administration’s broader initiative to downsize federal operations, aiming to boost efficiency. However, critics have voiced their disapproval, viewing this move as a drastic reduction of the EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has suggested a significant budget reduction of 65%, prompting this widespread staffing overhaul. The role of the agency spans key functions such as air and water quality monitoring, natural disaster response, and lead abatement, which could face cutbacks under this plan. Additionally, new guidelines state that expenditures exceeding $50,000 require clearance from the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Office of Research and Development, the core of EPA’s science operations, currently employs 1,540 individuals not counting special government employees and public health officers. A substantial portion of this workforce “will not be retained,” according to a recent memorandum.
This office operates from ten facilities nationwide, covering regions from Florida and North Carolina to Oregon. Plans reveal that the research division will be dissolved, with remaining staff reallocated to other agency sectors to enhance oversight and better align with administrative goals. Presently, the plan awaits evaluation by the White House.
Molly Vaseliou, a representative for the EPA, commented on the transition as a step towards organizational advancement, though she confirmed that no final decisions had been made. “We remain dedicated to delivering clean air, water, and land to all citizens,” she stated, emphasizing ongoing efforts to incorporate employee input on improving agency effectiveness.
Democratic Congressman Zoe Lofgren criticized the proposal, stressing that the research office was established by Congress, making its potential elimination illegal. She argued that without this office, the EPA cannot fulfill its obligation to utilize the best available science, which is crucial for decision-making. Lofgren further accused President Trump and his adviser Elon Musk of prioritizing polluter interests over public welfare.
Ticora Jones, from the Natural Resources Defense Council, condemned the proposed cuts, stating that the EPA continues to favor polluters over the public. She urged Congress to ensure EPA scientists remain active and contribute to securing clean air and water.
Kyla Bennett from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility highlighted that the research office’s scientific assessments, such as those analyzing chemical risks, are vital and should remain insulated from political influence. For instance, the office conducted comprehensive testing that revealed significant contamination of Cape Fear River’s drinking water with toxic chemicals. “This administration displays a clear antagonism towards science,” Bennett remarked, voicing concern over the proposed changes.
