The leaked EPA destination would reduce the science office

The Trump EPA plans a comprehensive removal of its scientists as part of a reorganization that, according to the house democrats, eliminates the existing science office of the agency.

The plans of the agency, which were checked by the democratic employee of the Committee for House Science, space and technology, include the majority – between 50 percent and 75 percent – of the 1,540 positions in the EPA Office of Research and Development.

The agency also plans to eliminate the office, which serves as a scientific research arm as a national program office. Some of the functions, positions and skills of the science business were “identified as direct legal work in other EPA program offices,” the plan says.

According to Haus Democrats, the intention to reduce the science employees of EPA is part of a more comprehensive dismissal and restructuring plan of the agency. President Donald Trump instructed every federal authority to provide proposals for cuts and restructuring for workforce at the beginning of this month. Another round due in April.

The plan of the EPA also suggests that the agency will request an exception to the requirement to give the employees to dismissal plans 60 days in advance. The agency tries to reduce the requirements to 30 days.

The EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said that he intends to shorten at least 65 percent of the expenditure of his agency, which would probably correspond to a significant reduction in the workforce.

The agency's plans, which were shared with the E&E messages of Politico, were first reported by the New York Times.

An EPA spokesman said on Tuesday that the plans had not been completed.

“The EPA takes exciting steps when we enter the next phase of organizational improvements.” Although no decisions have yet been made, we listen actively to employees at all levels to collect ideas on how the legal obligations of the agency better meet, increase the efficiency and ensure that the EPA is more current and effective as never before. “

Zeldin announced Fox Business on Tuesday morning that the New York Times was “far ahead” in this case, but he did not direct details about the proposed cuts of the science office.

“A decision is something that we work through.

MP Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), The Rangleicher member of the Science Committee, said that the elimination of the EPA science office was illegal.

“The last time, Trump and his crumps politicized and distorted science – they knew the value of ordinance and tried to weaken them,” said Lofgren. “Well, this is your attempt to finally kill it.

Former EPA officials also warn that the agency makes it impossible to avoid the science office in order to achieve their mission, to protect human health and the environment.

“The switching of the science offices of EPA would take a chainsaw for the work of toxicologists, doctors, nurses and other experts across the country, especially in places such as North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Georgia, where the agency operates large research laboratories,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the former main leadership assistant for EPA. Development and development of development and the development of EPAS.

“I don't know how to implement the mission without a scientist,” said Chitra Kumar, managing director of the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former EPA officer.

“Ord has made a lot of science behind the regulations.

Cuts across the country

According to former agency, the shrinking or closing of the office would influence a wide range of EPA programs and regulations. The work of the EPA scientists includes research into the water quality, the effects of air pollution and health risks through chemicals.

With 1,540 positions in the office, the performance of 75 percent of its employee would lead to 1,155 employees. According to the EPA plans, the office level of the office excludes special government agents and public health officers.

The Trump plan seems to be “part of an overall greater attack on the commitment of science in order to make decisions about environmental regulation,” said Stan Meiburg, former senior career officer at the EPA, who acted as deputy administrator during the Obama administration.

EPA scientists help to inform the rules of the agency for air and water quality, said Meiburg.

“For example, they were scientists who could see the status of Pfeifen in Flint [Michigan] And determine how these pipes were impaired by the lack of corrosion control, ”said Meiburg.

Meiburg said that the recruits would mainly have an impact on the Ord district in the research triangle of North Carolina as well as offices in Cincinnati and laboratories that are scattered across the country.

The loss of the research business would also affect the state environmental authorities, said Meiburg, who rely on EPA research to support their own approval and surveillance activities for air and water.

The EPA science office corresponds to approximately 10 percent of the EPA employees and 5 percent of its total budget, said Chris Frey, who headed the Office for Research and Development from 2022 to 2024. “This is an example of Penny-Wise and Pound-Foolish.”

Project 2025 against the science office

EPA research and science was strongly criticized in Project 2025, a conservative policy plan organized by the Heritage Foundation.

This plan states that the Office for Research and Development is the “largest employer” of the EPA and claims that it is deserved for political influence and is “public and legislative contributions”.

“A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA order and scientific activities that have not been approved by the congress,” says project 2025. “Several orders and programs, of which many inexplicable efforts represent scientific provisions in order to advance the supervisory authorities, enforcement and legal decisions.”

Reasures of the EPA science office could have long-term effects, said Chet Wayland, a long-time EPA career supervisor who recently retired as head of air quality surveillance.

“What did for us for us is that you have worked on scientific questions and have examined health studies to determine what new science delivered to the health effects on air pollution,” said Wayland, who was based in the North Carolina headquarters of the science office.

“If there is a loss now, you may not feel it immediately from a regulatory point of view,” said Wayland. “But young, down the street, you will really feel it, because as soon as science stops, it takes a long time to catch up again.”

Timothy Cama contributed to this report.