EPA Research Office Protected Americans' Health—Trump Dismantled It

The Disbanding of the EPA’s Research Division and Its Implications

For over 50 years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) has been a critical source of independent scientific research for the agency. This division has provided essential data on a wide range of environmental issues, from ozone depletion to the effects of pesticides like glyphosate. However, recent developments have raised concerns about the future of environmental science within the EPA.

Last week, the EPA officially confirmed that it is eliminating its research division and reducing its workforce by nearly 23 percent. This decision comes after months of speculation and denial, and it follows the departure of almost 4,000 employees through resignations, retirements, or layoffs. The move has sparked significant debate about the impact on the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and the environment.

The decision was made in response to a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Trump administration’s efforts to restructure and reduce the size of the federal government. With approximately 1,115 employees, the ORD has played a vital role in supporting the EPA’s legal mandate to use the “best available science” in its work. This research has been foundational in developing regulations on various contaminants, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), fine particulate matter, carbon dioxide emissions, and hazardous chemicals like asbestos and lead.

Experts warn that without a dedicated research arm, the EPA may struggle to establish new standards for pollutants, toxic chemicals, and other environmental hazards. Michael Gerrard, faculty director of the Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, emphasized the importance of having an independent research division to ensure that decisions are based on solid scientific evidence rather than political interests.

The ORD has also collaborated with states, local governments, and tribal communities on various environmental initiatives. It oversees six national research programs focused on different aspects of health and the environment. These programs have included studies on securing water systems against terrorist threats, understanding the health impacts of extreme weather, and modeling the economic benefits of reducing air pollution.

In response to the changes, the EPA stated that some ORD staff will be relocated to other parts of the agency, such as its air, water, and chemical offices, as well as a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. The agency claims these moves will save taxpayers nearly $750 million and bring the EPA closer to the structure it had during President Ronald Reagan’s time in the early 1980s. The goal, according to the EPA, is to prioritize research and science more than ever before.

However, former EPA employees and environmental advocates argue that the disbanding of the ORD could weaken the agency’s research capabilities and increase the risk of political interference in scientific decisions. Chris Frey, an associate dean at North Carolina State University who worked with the ORD, highlighted the importance of maintaining scientific integrity. He stressed that decisions should be based on evidence rather than the interests of stakeholders.

The EPA has not yet disclosed how many ORD scientists will remain within the agency. Critics point out that the U.S. regulatory system already gives chemical companies significant influence over how their products are regulated. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has only 90 days to assess a chemical’s risks before it enters the market, which has led to failures in protecting public health.

Environmental advocates argue that dissolving the ORD and integrating some of its scientists into the policymaking process could benefit industrial polluters by blurring the lines between science and politics. Research conducted by the ORD has not only supported new EPA regulations but also provided the scientific basis for enforcing TSCA.

Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the ORD’s findings often conflicted with the interests of regulated industries. She suggested that these groups might be pleased with the changes. Industry trade and lobby groups are also pushing for further deregulation, with the American Chemistry Council recently proposing updates to TSCA to make it more favorable for chemical companies.

As the EPA continues to reshape its structure, the long-term implications for environmental science and public health remain uncertain. The loss of the ORD raises important questions about the future of independent research and the role of science in shaping environmental policy.