Advocates Think EPA Cuts Will Hurt Research, But Critics Say Agency Was Biased

After the Supreme Court approved the Trump administration’s plans to lay off thousands of federal employees, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced “organizational improvements” in the department. These actions would, Zeldin said recently in making the announcement, address inefficiencies and improve the EPA’s ability to fulfill its core mission.

Zeldin said in the announcement Friday that he was creating a new Office of Finance and Administration to streamline the agency’s financial and administrative operations, as well as changes to other agency programs. The following day, Zeldin announced that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) would be eliminated.

Altogether, the planned cuts, which include voluntary retirements and separations in addition to layoffs, would reduce staffing by 23%, from a high of 16,155 employees in January to 12,448 employees after the changes are implemented, according to the EPA.

Politicized science
Critics of the cuts claim that the ORD was doing important research into the impacts of climate change, and by eliminating the department Zeldin was going to make it harder to address the problem.

Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, was among the most quoted critics.

Bennett, who worked for the EPA for 10 years, told NPR the cuts were “despicable” and Scripps News that the loss of ORD would lead to “air that’s not healthy to breathe and water that’s not healthy to drink.” She told The Washington Post that “Trump’s EPA clearly doesn’t care about scientific research or protecting human health or the environment.”