Zeldin’s EPA restructuring could curb climate action and strain environmental protections
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is downsizing staff to 1980s levels despite decades of added environmental responsibilities and growing public health challenges.
Sean Reilly, Jean Chemnick, Ellie Borst, and Miranda Willson report for E&E News.
In short:
- Administrator Lee Zeldin is implementing a plan to cut EPA staffing to Reagan-era levels, even as the agency faces expanded duties regulating pollutants, climate emissions, and chemical safety.
- Critics argue the cuts will hamper EPA’s capacity to protect air, water, and public health, especially as staff reassigned from research and climate programs are unavailable to meet increasing demands.
- The restructuring includes eliminating key science offices and scaling back climate initiatives, with some staffers warning of an “extinction event” for EPA’s climate work.
Key quote:
“They don’t want to have a scientist focused in a single area where they can really build their expertise and ensure the highest quality risk assessments.”
— Betsy Southerland, former EPA Office of Science and Technology director
Why this matters:
The EPA has long served as the nation’s frontline defense against air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and emerging threats like climate change and PFAS contamination. Since the 1980s, the agency’s mandate has expanded dramatically to keep pace with scientific discoveries and evolving public health risks. Today, EPA not only enforces traditional pollution controls but also grapples with complex, cross-cutting issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, cybersecurity threats to water infrastructure, and hazardous “forever chemicals.” Staffing cuts of the magnitude proposed by the Trump administration could delay or derail enforcement actions, permit reviews, chemical safety evaluations, and responses to environmental disasters. The decision to shrink or eliminate scientific divisions risks undermining evidence-based policymaking.
