The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an extensive reorganization on Friday, aligning with the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce expenditures. This move has raised concerns among some activists who fear it might negatively impact the agency’s independent scientific research endeavors.
Administrator Lee Zeldin revealed a series of changes, which feature the formation of a new unit within his office to prioritize science in the agency’s rulemaking processes. Zeldin asserted that the reorganization aims to enhance operational efficiency and result in annual savings of at least $300 million, though specific savings measures were not elaborated upon.
While Zeldin refrained from directly naming it, there is apprehension among scientists and environmental advocates that this move targets the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. This office has historically played a crucial role in backing the EPA’s mission to safeguard environmental and public health. The agency plans to redirect its scientific expertise and research initiatives towards program offices concentrating on major concerns like air and water pollution.
On the same day, President Donald Trump proposed a budget that would slash $235 million from the funding of the research office. The proposed budget claims this reduction will terminate what it describes as “unrestrained research grants” and other activities that it argues are excessive or not legally mandated.
EPA researchers have contributed significantly to advancements in air pollution monitoring, identified elevated levels of PFAS in drinking water, provided resources for flood prevention, and increased the availability of chemical safety information.
Earlier in the year, in March, potential plans emerged indicating that the EPA might lay off as many as 1,155 employees from the office, accounting for up to 75% of its workforce. These staffing reductions are part of Zeldin’s broader strategy to cut down the EPA’s budget by approximately two-thirds.
With ten facilities nationwide, the Office of Research and Development was designed to remain politically neutral, allowing for the production of critical scientific research.
Camden Weber, a climate and energy policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the reorganization. Weber described it as a typical maneuver from an authoritarian perspective, asserting that reducing essential institutions and pushing experts away threatens public health and environmental advancements, while also undermining autonomous scientific research in the United States.
EPA spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou emphasized that the changes represent a reorganization rather than a reduction in force.
Additionally, Zeldin announced the establishment of the Office of State Air Partnerships. This office is intended to foster collaboration with states and various agencies in developing pollution reduction strategies. Until now, the EPA has had the authority to implement its own plans if state efforts were deemed insufficient.
The agency stated that this adjustment would ensure consistent treatment for all states, regardless of their geographic location. However, Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, pointed out that this approach fails to consider the varying severity of air pollution across different regions, arguing that a one-size-fits-all solution is inappropriate.
Furthermore, the new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions will be responsible for scientific review processes. The EPA is projected to bolster this office with over 130 specialists across multiple disciplines, facilitating the completion of longstanding reviews on a multitude of chemicals and pesticides.
Zeldin noted that once these changes are fully implemented, EPA staffing levels will closely resemble those during President Ronald Reagan’s administration.
The EPA’s pre-cut workforce numbered approximately 15,000 employees. During Reagan’s tenure, the agency’s staff ranged from around 11,000 to 14,400.