The Environmental Protection Agency Needs Protecting

The Trump campaign has made so many radical promises that it's hard to know which will come to pass. Yet, we are tracking them knowing that the president-elect's team is committed to broad and destructive reforms. An early target of the transition team is the agency where I worked for nearly two decades: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA, like many federal agencies, is run by political appointees. While it's true that federal agencies have always changed leadership from administration to administration, countless career employees have worked to fulfill their agencies' missions, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Their expertise and institutional knowledge are invaluable-and of great benefit to the public.

I know this because I lived it, serving at the EPA through the majority of the first Trump administration. Within the Office of Community Revitalization, and across the entire agency-an institution charged with protecting human and environmental health-I saw politically-motivated and industry-driven attacks on science that sought to undermine our core values and mission.

Lee Zeldin must protect people

Last week, the President-elect announced former Congressman Lee Zeldin as his nominee to lead the EPA. Zeldin is a loyalist to the President-elect with no relevant environmental background to lead an agency that relies heavily on science to protect the public, and especially environmental justice communities. If confirmed by the Senate, he will be forced to choose between taking the EPA's mission to serve the public seriously or following through on the Trump campaign's promise of severe deregulation.

Deregulation would benefit a small number of big polluters at the expense of people's health, wallets, and the environment. This is also a major equity concern because heavily polluting industries exist most commonly in communities where Black, Indigenous and people of color, as well as low-income people, live.

Data shows this is also a concern shared by nearly two-thirds of Trump voters, who worry that the future EPA Administrator will put the interests of polluting corporations ahead of protecting clean water, clean air, and public health. Now that Zeldin is the official nominee, I too share this concern.

Zeldin has a history of fossil fuel fealty, illustrated by campaign donations and a track record of anti-science votes. During his terms in Congress, he voted against clean air and clean water legislation dozens of times, putting our health, environment, and economy at risk. Frankly, this is not the record of someone seriously interested in protecting people and our environment.

Lee Zeldin must protect science

More than two-thirds of the civil servants who power the EPA are scientists, charged with protecting both human health and the environment. They oversee long-term research that may, and often will, span administrations. The speed of science is not meant to be managed under political cycles, and when the pendulum swings too far between administrations, public trust in agencies designed to protect us erodes.

Science-informed public policy requires scientists serving in key agency positions to recommend policy. To do that agencies devote staff time, expertise, and resources to gathering and sharing data and information to make better decisions about policies now and in the future. When scientists are forced or threatened to leave agencies, it severely limits agencies' ability to advance science-informed policy free from any particular group's self-interest. It also poses a long-term threat. It could lead to more hazardous air pollutants from power plants and chemical plants. Or it could mean capitulating to the auto industry, rolling back fuel efficiency standards and sending emissions soaring. Or it could mean putting children's safety at risk because dangerous pesticides are allowed to flow freely. When federal agencies lose the expertise and knowledge of scientists, anti-science special interests benefit while public health is harmed. The EPA relies on scientists to inform policies that protect people and the environment and the politicization of facts puts all of us at risk.

In the first Trump administration, UCS catalogued over 50 instances of political appointees sidelining scientific evidence and attacking scientific integrity. These tactics included censoring scientists, circumventing advisory committees, undermining science-based safeguards, halting, suppressing and altering scientific studies, and driving out over 1000 scientists and technical experts. President-elect Trump and former Congressman Zeldin are expected to do much of the same in the four years to come: removing experts who could stand in their way of dismantling landmark climate regulations that for decades have kept the air we breathe and water we drink clean.

Lee Zeldin must protect stability

In the first Trump Administration, the agency was dealt double-digit percentage budget cuts year after year. And, year after year, the EPA saw the departure of hundreds upon hundreds of scientists. Undermining the EPA doesn't only pose real, tragic health risks-it is in direct defiance of the voters who elected the incoming administration.

An overwhelming majority of voters, including 81% of voters who supported Donald Trump, want Congress to increase funding for the EPA, or at the very least, keep it the same. Three in four Trump voters oppose attempts to weaken the EPA. And of dire importance to me, after focusing on the EPA's environmental justice work for years, 72% of Trump voters support increasing funding for communities disproportionally harmed by air and water pollution. Rolling back the progress the EPA has made over its nearly 55-year tenure isn't just out-of-touch with what communities need-it's entirely detached from reality.

Source: EPN

Ultimately, attacking science endangers our health by compromising protections for the public and for environmental justice communities facing the largest potential impacts from buried science, and weak and ineffective environmental and public health protections. In order to support the EPA's mission, and ensure they are providing benefits to those most harmed by the current status quo, we need a robust and supported scientific community at federal agencies-both to limit the potential harms of a Trump administration, and to ensure we can have a speedy recovery and reversal of any harmful and damaging policies when the opportunity arises.

We must protect our future

Nothing is inevitable, and UCS is ready to fight to keep strong science at EPA. During the first Trump administration, UCS successfully led a lawsuit overturning the EPA's unlawful ban on scientists serving on advisory committees and restoring integrity to federal decision-making. When the EPA refused to hold a hearing on a controversial rollback of methane protections, UCS organized an alternative public hearing, giving a platform to affected communities and experts. UCS brought accountability to the agency, exposing the devastating impacts of the administration's weakened Clean Water Rule, highlighting its disregard for science and the importance of wetlands and tributaries in protecting drinking water. And UCS helped win additional pollution protections from trucks, and brought a spotlight to the real and devastating impacts reckless, anti-science leadership has on public health.

I bring up what UCS did from 2017 to 2021, not to diminish the tangible harms accomplished in the first Trump administration, but rather to frame our mission in facing the challenge that lies ahead.

It is clear that the incoming administration has the entire regulatory state in their crosshairs-which is why UCS is hitting the ground running to save science and save lives. We intend to continue our work of fully supporting federal scientists through our network and resources in order to protect and limit the loss of the federal scientific workforce. We will also use Senate confirmation hearings to fight unqualified science agency nominations such as Lee Zeldin. We will also support efforts to continue funding programs that support communities via the Inflation Reduction Act.

Independent science is a public good and it must be protected.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.