EPA Staff Sign Protest Letter Against Trump-Era Policies

    0
    0

    On Monday, a collective of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees released a statement openly criticizing the EPA’s policies under the Trump administration. The document, endorsed by more than 170 employees, with around 100 opting for anonymity due to fears of retribution, argues that current policies compromise the agency’s objective of safeguarding human health and the environment. Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine, although not employed by the EPA, was among the non-agency experts and academics endorsing the document, including over 20 Nobel laureates.

    The letter is a rare instance of public disapproval from agency staff who risk professional repercussions for opposing reductions in funding and federal backing for climate, environmental, and health sciences. A similar public expression of concern was made by scientists at the National Institutes of Health earlier in the month. “Since the EPA’s inception in 1970, it has achieved its aims through the application of scientific principles, resource allocation, and the expertise of dedicated staff members for the benefit of American citizens. Today, we unite in dissent against the current administration’s emphasis on harmful deregulation, misrepresentation of past EPA initiatives, and neglect of scientific expertise,” states the letter.

    In response, the EPA issued a statement asserting that policy decisions are informed by current science and research briefings provided by EPA career professionals. The administration also expressed criticism of the Biden administration’s alleged efforts to undermine American energy independence, which they argue leads to increased reliance on foreign fossil fuels, with detrimental global environmental and economic consequences.

    A call to restore EPA’s mission was echoed by employees like Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist. Hertzberg, who has been on administrative leave since February, expressed disappointment over the agency’s performance under the current administration. Her work at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, now facing closure, focused on supporting vulnerable groups, including pregnant and nursing individuals, children, the elderly, and those in high-pollution areas. According to her, ensuring safe drinking water and clean air should not be contentious.

    The letter highlights five principal areas of concern for EPA employees: erosion of public trust, dismissal of scientific consensus for the benefit of polluters, reversal of environmental progress in vulnerable communities, dismantling of the Office of Research and Development, and fostering a culture of fear that jeopardizes staff welfare and livelihood. Under current leadership, the EPA has reduced funding intended for environmental improvements in minority communities and has been pledged to repeal regulations restricting air pollution in national parks and tribal lands.

    Administrator Lee Zeldin’s reorganization efforts include significant budget cuts and altered priorities for the research and development office, aiming to diminish its study of climate change and environmental justice. Plans to eliminate pollution regulations estimated to save thousands of lives and billions in economic costs annually have drawn concern from critics such as Nobel laureate Carol Greider, who underscored the life-threatening risks posed by climatic changes during a recent East Coast heatwave.

    This act of dissent, notable for the open defiance by scientists despite potential career risks, extends beyond agency staff to include concerns about stifled scientific endeavors as research backing could dwindle. Carol Greider, while aware of potential backlash, expressed concern for the future of scientific education, as uncertainty affects students contemplating careers in science. This scenario threatens the advancement of scientific research, posing a long-term challenge that could impede progress for decades.