Trump’s Policies Are Raising Gas Prices Today and Could Keep Them Higher for Decades

President Trump has shown remarkably little concern about making Americans pay higher gasoline prices. His choices to start and continue the Iran War have raised U.S. gasoline prices to near all-time highs, devastating family budgets, and his shortsighted decision to weaken clean-vehicle policies will continue to raise gasoline costs for decades to come.

The ongoing war has had a massive and foreseeable impact. It was totally predictable that, in retaliation to U.S. and Israeli attacks, Iran would restrict oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and counterattack oil production and refining facilities throughout the Mideast. As expected, reduced global oil supply sparked a major energy price shock.

As of July 23, the war has raised world oil prices from $60 per barrel to about $100 per barrel. Nationally, the average regular gasoline price has risen from about $3 per gallon to $4.10 per gallon. The Brown University Iran War Energy Cost Tracker projects that higher gasoline and diesel prices due to the war have already cost US consumers $73 billion, or more than $500 for every U.S. household. These higher costs contribute to the ongoing inflation that is eating away at family budgets.

The price increases could have been even worse, but markets have so far been tempered by the belief that the fighting would soon end and Mideast oil production would quickly recover. After five months of chaos alternating between hopeful promises of peace and desperate escalations of war, that confidence may be wearing thin. If markets shift from “expecting the best” to “fearing the worst,” an added risk premium could push prices at the pump even higher.

One of the best protections that American consumers could have to $4 gasoline would be to transition to more fuel efficient gasoline vehicles and, over time, to greater adoption of electric vehicles that use no gasoline. But, making matters even worse for consumers in the future, the Trump administration has completely dismantled U.S. fuel economy standards and tailpipe carbon pollution limits so automakers will not have to build cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks. This will increase U.S. gasoline consumption over time and limit the choices people have to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. It’s Economics 101: greater gasoline demand plus lower supply means higher prices. Even the U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that increased gasoline consumption associated with less-fuel efficient vehicles on the road could contribute to gasoline prices up to 76 cents per gallon higher by 2050.

Predictable and moderate gasoline prices are considered a key indicator of a healthy and stable economy. Why is President Trump choosing to raise gasoline prices for American families?

The president appears to believe that higher gasoline prices do not matter to Americans. He has called the issue of affordability “a hoax” and the U.S. economy “the greatest in the history of the world.” On March 5, in an interview with Reuters, he dismissed the risks of higher gasoline prices with “if they rise, they rise.” President Trump can afford to shrug off higher gasoline prices. A small-business owner deciding between filling the company truck and making payroll cannot.

President Trump often points to stock-market returns as proof of economic success. But families and small businesses judge the economy by their kitchen-table budgets, and higher gasoline prices leave them with less. The oil industry spent heavily to support Trump and other Republicans in 2024, and its leading trade groups explicitly urged the administration to roll back clean-vehicle standards. Those rollbacks will keep Americans buying more gasoline for longer, increasing oil-company sales while leaving families and small businesses more exposed to high and volatile prices at the pump.

For the first time in history, we have a president simultaneously pursuing multiple policies that significantly increase gasoline prices. While families, businesses, and the media understandably focus on the immediate financial pain of $4 gasoline over the five months of the Iran War, we must not lose sight of the fact that the president’s short-sighted climate policies could lock us into decades of dependence on inefficient gasoline cars and higher, more volatile gasoline prices.

Share

Dads Can Fix a Lot. Toxic Pollution Takes More Than a Toolbox.

By Marc Boom, Senior Director of Public Affairs at Environmental Protection Network

My dad could fix almost anything.

His father was a mechanic, and he grew up knowing his way around cars, tools, and the practical work of keeping a home running. He became a mechanical engineer, so fixing and improving things was not just something he did around the house. It was part of how he understood the world.

When I was a kid, he fixed our cars, built things for the house, and helped with scout projects and science-class assignments. He didn’t just do the work—he made sure I learned how to do it, too.

But for all his skills, he always knew that some jobs called for a professional. Replacing the electrical box. Fixing the roof. Rebuilding a transmission. Part of understanding how things work is knowing when a problem is too big, too technical, or too risky to take on alone.

That lesson feels especially relevant now, because toxic pollution is one of those problems that needs fixing, but one that families cannot fix on their own. We can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves, but no family can filter, shop, or research its way out of systemic pollution. We need EPA to do its job: use independent science, enforce safeguards, and stop pollution before it reaches our air, water, food, homes, and bodies.

Dads can fix a lot. But no dad can fix polluted air, contaminated water, or toxic chemicals with a toolbox.

I think about that a lot around Father’s Day: my dad, the kind of father he was, and my own role as a dad to my son and daughter. I want to be there for them. I want to protect them. I want to leave them a world that is safer, healthier, and better than the one we inherited.

My dad passed away in 2013 at age 67 from heart failure. Although I was an adult, losing him as a father, and watching my children grow up without the grandfather he would have been, has been deeply painful.

I do not know whether pollution contributed to my dad’s heart failure. What I do know is that air pollution is one of the most well-established risk factors for heart attacks, strokes, and other serious cardiovascular risks. That possibility is something I cannot unknow.

And my family’s grief is not unique. Research published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters estimates that air pollution from sources in the United States contributes to about 100,000 deaths in this country each year. Behind every number is a family absorbing stress, medical bills, caregiving, and loss that no one chose and no one should have to carry alone.

Too often, the companies responsible for that pollution face far less of the burden than the people harmed by it. We all depend on products and industries that create pollution. But dependency is not consent to absorb the health costs and those costs should not unfairly fall onto families.

We often talk about men’s health in terms of diet, exercise, stress, checkups, and family history. Those things matter. But they are not the whole story. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the products we use, the places we live, and the chemicals we may encounter at work can also affect our long-term health.

Toxic exposures can affect men in serious and specific ways, including:

• Heart and lung health: Fine particle pollution and smog are linked to heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, and long-term lung damage. For a dad with heart disease, asthma, or a job that keeps him outside, dirty air is not abstract. It can affect whether he can work, exercise, or keep up with his kids.

• Fertility and reproductive health: Chemicals such as phthalates and PFAS have been linked to reduced sperm quality, lower testosterone levels, and reduced fertility. For men trying to start or grow a family, these exposures can become part of an already stressful and private struggle.

• Cancer risks: Toxic substances including benzene, formaldehyde, TCE, vinyl chloride, and arsenic have been linked to different forms of cancer, with some risks especially serious for workers exposed over time. These are not risks most people can see, smell, or trace back to one source until years later.

• Workplace and community exposure: Men who work with chemicals, fuels, solvents, pesticides, or industrial materials, or who live near factories, refineries, or industrial sites, can face cumulative exposures over years or decades. Many are simply doing their jobs, supporting their families, and living where they can afford to live. They should not be left to carry those risks alone.

These are not niche concerns, and they are not concerns men are ignoring.

A May 2026 YouGov survey commissioned by EPN found that among men ages 30 to 44, many of whom are raising families, building careers, or both, 80% are concerned about harmful air pollution, 78% are concerned about toxic chemicals on fruits and vegetables, and 77% are concerned about microplastics in drinking water.

That concern makes sense to me. And policymakers who assume men are not paying attention to environmental health should think again. When men say they are worried about air pollution, toxic chemicals on food, and microplastics in drinking water, they are calling for safeguards that reduce exposure before people get sick.

That is why we have the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA safeguards are supposed to stop harmful pollution before it reaches our lungs, tap water, food, homes, and workplaces. They are supposed to make risks visible, require proven pollution controls, and hold polluters accountable when they break the law.

But right now, EPA leadership is weakening, delaying, or reconsidering too many of those safeguards. Independent science is being sidelined. Enforcement is being reduced. Health protections against toxic chemicals and pollution are being rolled back or slowed down, even when the risks are well known.

The agency’s leadership has also taken another deeply troubling step: it is no longer fully counting the health costs avoided and lives saved when air pollution is reduced, while still counting the costs to industry of cutting pollution.

That is not just a technical change. It is a statement of values.

My dad’s life was worth more than a company’s compliance costs. My son’s life is worth more. My daughter’s life is worth more. My life is worth more. Your life is worth more.

Treating industry costs as real while pushing aside the value of fewer heart attacks, cancers, asthma attacks, lost parents, and grieving families is deeply disrespectful to the value of human life.

Are we leaving our children a world where preventing avoidable illness is something government takes seriously? Or one where every family is expected to manage pollution on its own?

This Father’s Day, I am thinking about my dad, what he taught me, and what it means to protect the people we love. He believed things could be fixed and improved. But he also knew that some problems require the right tools, the right expertise, and the responsibility to do the job correctly.

Toxic pollution is one of those problems. It is EPA’s job to protect us from these risks, and our job to demand that they do it right.

That is the legacy worth leaving.

This Father’s Day, Read EPN's new Men's Health and Toxic Exposures Issue Brief, sign the Safer, Not Sicker petition at https://safernotsicker.org/take-action/, and share them with a dad, grandfather, son, brother, or friend who wants a healthier future for the people and they love.

Subscribe now

Share

What Americans — including Trump Supporters — Actually Want from the EPA

New national polling finds Americans agree their health should come first

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has spent the past year dismantling the EPA. Cutting scientists and other staff. Rolling back chemical safety rules. Fast-tracking data centers. Slow-walking plans to address PFAS forever chemicals in drinking water. Weakening air pollution standards.

Turns out, President Trump’s own supporters aren’t on board.

A new national survey of 2,025 registered voters finds that Americans across every political line want stronger EPA protections from toxic chemicals and pollution—not the weaker ones we are getting. The poll was conducted by YouGov on behalf of former EPA employees at Environmental Protection Network (where I am a Senior Advisor).

The number that stand out

Public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that most of the public opposes rolling back environmental health and standards. But this is the first survey that I am aware of that delves deeply into what people actually want out of the EPA.

The numbers that stand out most are those from Americans who approve of President Trump’s overall job performance.

82% of Trump’s core supporters want him to be tougher on polluters.

90% of Trump supporters want the EPA monitoring air and water pollution. 88% want the agency to ensure chemical safety. 85% want it guaranteeing clean air and water for all communities.

These aren’t typical environmentalists. They’re the president’s supporters. They are young men concerned about a lifetime of microplastics. MAHA moms angry about runaway influence by chemical companies. Rural and suburban families facing mounting healthcare costs. And everyone—Republicans, Independents, and Democrats—who wants more protection out of EPA and less politics.

Why? Because they’re paying for it

81% of Americans say the burden of pollution is landing on families —through medical bills and long-term health consequences. The cost of living is already crushing people.

Concerns about getting sick from contaminated water, polluted air, or toxic chemicals are especially high among the large share of Americans who can’t afford to get sick.

This is a pocketbook issue, not just a health issue.

So what do Americans actually want?

By a 7-to-1 margin, Americans want the EPA strengthened or expanded.

By 8-to-1, they believe the EPA should prioritize protecting public health over cutting regulations.

And when asked about Administrator Zeldin’s signature push to make America the “AI capital of the world”? Only 16% think that should be EPA’s job.

The public’s awareness gap

Here’s the catch: a significant share of Americans haven’t been closely following what’s happening at EPA. They don’t yet know about the slowdown in enforcement, the rollbacks, the sidelining of scientists.

“It’s not really an issue debate as much as it is an awareness gap,” said YouGov Senior Director John Ray. “When people hear about cutbacks at EPA, they don’t like it.”

The good news: Two-thirds of survey respondents said they’d share the information they learned about the EPA with friends and family.

And former EPA staff and scientists rank as two of the most trusted sources of information on chemicals and pollution —above politicians, above cable news, and above EPA itself.

Which is why the hundreds of former EPA staff who are part of the Environmental Protection Network have launched a public awareness and engagement campaign. If you’re one of the ninety percent of people who think EPA should monitor air and water pollution, ensure corporations comply with environmental laws, and do more to protect our health, not less, please share this news and sign Environmental Protection Network’s petition at safernotsicker.org to tell our leaders to put our health first.

This poll was conducted April 22–27, 2026 by YouGov on behalf of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonpartisan organization of more than 750 former EPA scientists, engineers, and policy experts. The YouGov poll deck and methodology is available here. Expanded survey findings are available here.

This substack has also been posted on the Symons Says substack.

Subscribe now

Share

When my kids were little, I worried about the normal things mothers worry about: Was the fever serious? Were they eating enough vegetables? Did they remember their homework? Were they getting enough sleep?

I did not expect to spend time wondering whether the water we used to make macaroni and cheese might contain PFAS “forever chemicals.” Or whether the air outside could trigger asthma attacks. Or whether the products I use every day to manage our home contain chemicals linked to developmental problems, infertility, or cancer.

But that’s where we are now. And like so many mothers and grandmothers today, I find it deeply frustrating.

Moms already do enough. They already carry the invisible labor of keeping families healthy, safe, organized, fed, comforted, educated, and functioning. They should not have to become toxicologists, environmental scientists, and chemical safety experts just to protect children from everyday exposures.

But we are.

Increasingly, the burden of protection is being shifted onto families and everyday people.

This Mother’s Day, the Environmental Protection Network released a new report examining how toxic chemical exposures affect moms, babies, and kids at every stage of life—from fertility and pregnancy through early childhood development.

As both a mother and someone who has spent years working at the EPA on water safety, what struck me most while reading it was just how much of this responsibility falls on families to carry alone.

Mothers Are Being Asked to Manage the Unmanageable

The report outlines how toxic chemicals show up across everyday life. In the food packaging from the local grocery store, the products we rely on and use daily, our drinking water, the polluted air we breathe, furniture, pesticides, and the list goes on and on. Many of these exposures are invisible. Most are difficult or impossible for families to fully avoid.

Still, mothers are the ones told to research ingredients, buy different products, filter the water, monitor air quality, replace cookware, avoid plastics, inspect labels on everything they buy… Adding more and more to the invisible, endless task list already running through their heads. And they’re expected to do all this while juggling jobs, caregiving, school pickups, medical appointments, grocery bills, and the thousand other responsibilities families already carry.

Are there steps people can take to reduce exposure? Of course. But these are partial solutions that require time, money, and information not every family has access to. No parent can filter their way out of systemic pollution—and none of us can afford to get sick.

The Job of Protecting Families Shouldn’t Fall Entirely on Families

For decades, Americans understood there were rules in place to limit harmful pollution and toxic exposures. That’s the role Congress assigned to EPA: to use independent science to reduce dangerous exposures at the source, so parents are not left on their own to manage impossible risks.

But many of those safeguards are now being weakened.

When that happens, the costs shift onto the mother buying bottled water because she no longer trusts the tap, managing a child’s chronic illness, paying higher medical bills, missing work and school, and carrying stress that should never have been hers to begin with.

Former EPA experts like me – who are also mothers and grandmothers – spent careers working to reduce toxic exposures and protect public health. Now we’re watching decisions unfold that we know will increase risks for families.

And we’re speaking up by being part of the Safer, Not Sicker campaign.

On behalf of all the moms and grandmothers out there, we are asking for leaders willing to make choices that leave families safer, not sicker. That requires reducing toxic exposures at their source, relying on independent science, and enforcing safeguards that protect families before harm occurs.

Because mothers already do enough. And protecting families from toxic pollution should not be another item added to the list.

To read the full report, learn more about the Safer, Not Sicker campaign and sign our petition if you also think it’s wrong to continue to allow this burden to land on moms.

Subscribe now

Share

A Spring Thanksgiving for Our Public Servants

It’s Public Service Recognition Week, a time to give thanks to our tireless and brave civil servants who keep our country running while protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we depend on. Public servants’ dedication helps turn our shared values into real protections for people’s daily lives. The very fabric of our nation is woven by the hands of these dedicated professionals, whose enduring commitment ensures our country remains resilient and functional.

This professional civil service did not happen by chance. It was built after the spoils system of the 19th century — when government jobs were often handed out as political rewards. The modern civil service was designed around a different principle: public servants should be hired for their qualifications and serve the public interest, not political patrons.

At the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), we are fortunate to work alongside the dedicated former public servants who were tasked with protecting people from harmful pollution. EPN brings together more than 750 former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) civil servants who continue to volunteer their time to protect human health and the environment beyond their initial call to service.

At its core, this work is about something simple but essential: protecting people. EPA exists to protect human health — your health, your children’s health, and your aging parents’ health. This is a special note of thanks to all of EPN’s volunteers and to the current civil servants who continue working every day to keep us safer, not sicker.

To the Office of Water - Thank you for keeping our rivers and streams clean and preventing another Cuyahoga River disaster, which caught fire at least 13 times and was caused by extreme industrial pollution. Thanks to the Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, and EPN volunteers like Elizabeth Southerland and Ronnie Levin, U.S. waterways and drinking water sources are better protected from harmful pollutants, supporting better water quality for fishing and swimming and helping make tap water safer to drink.

To the Office of Air and Radiation - Thank you for keeping harmful smog and soot (particulate matter/PM), mercury and other dangerous pollutants out of the air we breathe, and reducing acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate pollution. Thanks to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPN volunteers like Rob Brenner and Joseph Goffman, air pollution has been drastically reduced, preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, and other serious health issues annually.

To the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention - Thank you for helping keep pesticide residues in the food we eat in check and for assessing risks to broader ecological systems from chemical exposure. Thanks to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and EPN volunteers, including Penny Fenner-Crisp and Linda Birnbaum, safety standards have been strengthened — reducing risks posed by chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health harms.

To the Office of Land and Emergency Management - Thank you for managing hazardous waste, cleaning up contaminated land, and responding to environmental emergencies. Thanks to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund and EPN volunteers like Barbara Elkus and Bill Muno, hazardous materials are safely cleaned up, transported, treated, and stored until disposal, keeping our land and communities safe.

To the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and EPN volunteers like George Wyeth, Cheryl Wasserman, and Joe Tieger - Thank you for ensuring polluters are held accountable by enforcing the nation’s environmental laws and targeting serious air, water, and chemical hazards, such as PFAS contamination.

From the scientists in the lab to the inspectors in the field, these individuals represent the best of our country’s professional civil service. We are fortunate to collaborate with such tireless experts who have dedicated their careers to protecting our air, water, land, and communities. This week, and every week, we thank them for their service and their unwavering commitment to a safer, healthier world for all.

Subscribe now

Share

Nearly 50 years later, you’d think those lessons would have stuck—but in too many ways, we’re being asked to learn them all over again.

In 1978, a housewife in Niagara Falls, NY named Lois Gibbs started noticing that something was wrong in her neighborhood. Her son had developed epilepsy and a blood disorder shortly after starting school. When she learned that the Love Canal neighborhood had been built on top of 21,000 tons of buried chemical waste, she started knocking on doors — and found miscarriages, birth defects, and cancers in children who should have had nothing to worry about.

She wasn’t an activist. She was a mom. She organized, pushed, and refused to be dismissed until the federal government responded — relocating hundreds of families and creating the Superfund program to clean up the most contaminated sites in America.

It worked because people demanded something better and their leaders listened. The Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The EPA. These weren’t gifts from Washington — they were responses to Americans who refused to accept preventable harm as normal.

And these solutions worked.

Air got cleaner. Water got safer. Toxic exposures were reduced. But the gains went beyond public health. Cleaner communities meant children missing fewer school days and parents fewer days of work. Families had more confidence about where to raise kids, buy a home, and put down roots. Neighborhoods that had been written off began to recover.

Reducing pollution didn’t hold America back — it expanded what was possible for millions of families.

For a while, that felt like settled common sense.

Now that common sense is under siege.

Today’s pollution is harder to see than smokestacks and chemical dumps. It’s in the microscopic soot and toxics from power plants and industry that enter the bloodstream with every breath, raising the risk of heart attack, stroke, and lung cancer. It’s in the “forever chemicals” and heavy metals found in the drinking water of millions — tasteless, odorless, and linked to cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental problems in children. Many Americans don’t need a study to know something is wrong. They see it in the child who can’t get through a school week without an inhaler. The neighbor managing heart disease at fifty. The grandchild born too early.

And now current leaders at EPA are telling us the rules went too far and that protections can be rolled back without much consequence.

Consider what is already happening:

• The EPA recently announced it will no longer count the health benefits of reducing air pollution when weighing cleaner air rules. In practice, that means the costs to industry are counted, but the lives saved, hospital visits avoided, and school days children would not miss are pushed aside.

• At the same time, the administration has rolled back pollution standards for power plants, citing the need to meet rising electricity demand from data centers and AI. The likely health costs to nearby families were not even addressed.

In other words: the economic benefits are being counted. The health costs to families are not.

But costs don’t disappear when protections are weakened. They get shifted — onto the parent managing a child’s chronic illness, the family buying bottled water because they don’t trust the tap, the community watching its health erode while waiting for someone in power to pay attention. And once that damage is done, families live with it for years. Sometimes generations.

We all want a strong economy and reliable energy. The question has never been whether to grow — it’s whether that growth will be done responsibly, or whether families will be left to absorb risks that were never theirs to carry.

Lois Gibbs didn’t think of herself as an environmentalist. She thought of herself as a mother protecting her kids. Those turned out to be the same thing.

That’s what the Safer, Not Sicker campaign is built around. Most people don’t have time to track every regulatory decision made in Washington. They shouldn’t have to. But those decisions shape how exposed we are to pollution in our homes, schools, and neighborhoods. Individuals can take steps to reduce their own exposure — but no one can filter or shop their way out of systemic pollution. It has to be reduced at the source, through honest rules, credible science, and leaders willing to put families first.

Earth Day has always belonged to people like Lois Gibbs — everyday Americans who decided that preventable harm wasn’t something they had to accept.

That work is not finished.

Today’s threats may be harder to see, but invisible does not mean harmless. And a better future is a hollow promise if it comes at the cost of our health.

This Earth Day, the question isn’t what we can afford to protect—it’s who we’re willing to put at risk.

We’ve answered that question before. We cannot accept getting it wrong again.

Take Action: If you believe our health should come first, join the Safer, Not Sicker Campaign and support the Environmental Protection Network.

Subscribe now

Share

Safer, Not Sicker: Why We’re Launching a National Campaign on Toxic Chemicals in 2026

Most Americans are asking the same questions.

Why are more young people I know getting cancer? Why are so many families struggling to get or stay pregnant? Why are so many people facing asthma, developmental challenges, heart disease, Parkinson’s and other serious illnesses?

Something feels different. Something feels worse.

As we sit here in 2026, many of us assume the causes of chronic and terminal illnesses are simply beyond our control. Genetics. Bad luck. Stress. Modern life. But there’s another factor we can’t afford to ignore.

What’s being released into our environment — and what federal safeguards are no longer stopping — plays a role. And the American public deserves to know the truth.

The scientific evidence is clear—regular exposure to toxic chemicals occurs in everyday environments: in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food on our tables, and the products inside our homes.

Dangerous chemicals are present in soot and smog, in pesticides and plastics, in industrial solvents, in heavy metals, and in emerging contaminants like PFAS “forever chemicals.”

Exposure doesn’t happen once. It happens repeatedly. It accumulates. It compounds. More frequent exposure to higher levels of toxic chemicals is contributing to America’s health problems.

Many Americans may not realize the scale of this exposure — or how rapidly it is increasing as EPA safeguards are weakened across multiple pollutants simultaneously.

Despite having well-established technology to reduce this pollution at its source, we are now heading in the wrong direction — toward greater exposure, higher household costs, and worsening health outcomes — not because the science has changed, but because federal policy choices have.

Communities like “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana, coal country in the Ohio River Valley, and agricultural communities from California’s Central Valley to Florida’s Vegetable Belt already face multiple toxic threats at once — and are now facing compounded harm as EPA rollbacks increase each of these risks simultaneously.

It does not have to be this way.

This week, the Environmental Protection Network is launching a new national campaign: Safer, Not Sicker. Most Americans do not have the time to track regulatory rollbacks, delayed safeguards, or weakened enforcement actions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But those decisions affect every one of us.

At this pivotal moment, safeguards that Americans have long taken for granted are crumbling across multiple major toxic threats at once — often without public awareness. These decisions effectively treat current exposure levels as acceptable.

Safeguards exist to prevent pollution at its source and to hold polluters accountable under laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. When they erode, the public loses its first line of defense.

That erosion happens when science is sidelined, independent expertise is muted, and oversight and enforcement are weakened. These are not bureaucratic accidents. They reflect choices made by the agency’s current political leadership — choices that depart from EPA’s core mission to protect human health.

The public has a right to know when the protections guarding their health are washing away. If the agency charged with protecting people is unable or unwilling to speak plainly about how its decisions affect exposure and health, then independent experts must step forward.

That is what we are doing. In our newly published report, Terrible Toxics: A Situation Report, the Environmental Protection Network analyzed 12 of the most prevalent and dangerous toxic chemicals and pollutants in the United States. These are substances with well-established health risks and preventable consequences.

Our conclusion is deeply concerning: EPA’s current political leadership has taken actions that increase the risk of exposure across all 12 categories.

This should concern everyone. Health safeguards exist to prevent harm before it happens. When safeguards weaken, exposure increases. And when exposure increases, health risks rise — especially for infants and children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable.

The EPA was created because the American public needed independent scientific review, clear safety standards, and government oversight to ensure corporations followed the law.

Companies answer to shareholders. Public health agencies answer to the American people.

That distinction matters.

In the United States, we rely on a public health framework in which federal agencies conduct independent scientific assessments, establish protective standards, and enforce them. That system exists so individuals are not left alone to manage complex chemical risks.

The burden should not fall solely on families to research every ingredient, monitor every emission, or filter every drop of water.

When safeguards are weakened, health risks are increased and costs are shifted onto families.

That isn’t fair and that is why we are launching Safer, Not Sicker — to help Americans see the full picture, understand the cumulative impact of federal decisions, and demand policies that put our health first.

Safer is a choice. Let’s ensure it’s the one Congress and the EPA make.

Subscribe now

Share

A new rule from the Trump Administration undermines professional civil service. That is bad news for your health

By: Mark Hague

Sipping a glass of clean water from the tap, taking a deep breath on a summer walk, catching a trout in a gurgling brook, cleaning up contaminated properties for reuse—these are among the many things Americans can take for granted thanks to more than fifty years of professional work by civil service employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies.

Across Republican and Democrat administrations, professional staff at EPA and the Justice Department have impartially held polluters accountable and enforced the bedrock environmental laws that have cleaned the air, safeguarded our waters, cleaned up contaminated properties, and protected the public from toxic chemicals and pesticides.

Until recently, Americans living in rural towns and urban centers, red states or blue states, have been able to count on EPA scientists, engineers, attorneys, inspectors, emergency responders, and other professional experts to safeguard their communities and make sure everyone is playing by the same set of environmental rules.

EPA’s first Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, set forth three principles to guide EPA: follow the law, follow the science, and be transparent. Those principles have been an anchor for Republican and Democratic Administrators, alike.

Until now.

EPA’s current Administrator, Lee Zeldin, has instead ignored the law, gutted science, and replaced transparency at EPA with secrecy. Time and again over the past year, political appointees at EPA, several of whom come straight from the ranks of the chemical industry, have put the pursuit of a political agenda ahead of the basic health and environmental protections afforded to all Americans by the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other bedrock environmental laws.

Today, Trump’s Office of Personal Management is publishing in the Federal Register a final rule – dubbed by the Trump administration as “Schedule F” – that will ease the path of this agenda by ushering in a new era of political favoritism in the ranks of EPA and other government agencies. The plan strips safeguards from the civil service that were put in place over 100 years ago by the Civil Service Reform Act.

According to the new rule, political appointees can now “quickly remove employees from critical positions” who “obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.” In other words: do what I say, regardless of what the law says.

The new plan sets in motion a system that would allow the President to summarily dismiss career civil servants without regard for decades of due process. It would return our professional civil service back to one rife with spoilage and patronage. It allows any president to fire thousands of long-serving career staff without cause and reward their jobs instead to political allies.

This plan is a dramatic and traumatic departure from the long-standing protections for civil servants, which have historically limited political appointments to high-level government agency positions. The roughly 4,000 politically appointed leaders are in place government-wide to promote the president’s policy agenda, but they must rely on the technical expertise and experience of career employees to guide them in decision-making.

The civil service system that is now being upended has benefitted from a simple, common sense approach to staffing the government: people are hired and fired based on merit, not political loyalty.

Under the new plan, employees would no longer be protected against arbitrary and politically motivated firing if their jobs were reclassified as “Schedule F.”

The administration has estimated that the rule will reclassify about 50,000 civil servant jobs across the government into this new stew of political cronyism. That number could easily grow now that the architecture is in place.

Even career staff who are not immediately reclassified will now work under the threat of possible reclassification and termination if they offended presidential political appointees.

Career civil servants are duty-bound to ensure that administration policy prerogatives are implemented, but only within the confines of established laws and ethical codes of conduct.

In 2020, Dr. Ronald Sanders, a lifelong Republican, resigned as Chair of the Federal Salary Council in protest against Donald Trump’s first attempt to make these changes. In his resignation letter, Dr. Sanders warned:

“Career Federal employees are legally and duty-bound to be nonpartisan; they take an oath to preserve and protect our Constitution and the rule of law…not to be loyal to a particular President or Administration…. Yet the President’s Executive Order seeks to make loyalty to him the litmus test for many thousands of career civil servants.”

Consider the potential ramifications of an EPA managed by newly-appointed political operatives whose sole qualifications were rooted in patronage or campaign contributions. This would undermine the ability of EPA to protect our health and the environment and hold violators of environmental laws accountable. In a fire-at-will environment in which management positions are filled by political allies of the administration, the prospects for such abuses would become acute.

If you believe in small government and an anti-regulatory agenda, then pulling technically skilled and experienced EPA staff off the job may sound like a good move. But not when they are replaced in a system of political favoritism that uses taxpayer dollars to pay people for their political loyalty.

This move to politicize civil service jobs comes on the heels of a purge of EPA scientists. Zeldin has closed EPA’s science office and set a goal of removing more than 1,000 scientists from the agency. These are experts who monitor toxic pollution, identify emerging threats, and help inspectors hold polluters accountable when they harm the health of children and other vulnerable populations. They inform states, communities, industry, and neighboring nations about what it takes to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.

Zeldin is less transparent than any Administrator in history. The little we do know about what is happening inside the agency comes from Freedom of Information Requests, investigative journalism, and whistleblowers. This new era of cronyism will be especially toxic when combined with secrecy to aid and abet efforts to undermine environmental laws and suppress science.

Imagine the consequences when your local drinking water is no longer adequately monitored for contamination or safeguarded against unhealthy levels of toxic chemicals, or your local environmentally responsible business is undercut by competitors who are not held to account for allowing illegal toxic discharges.

So, think twice about the real impacts of placing responsibility for protecting your health and the environment with a new class of political patronage employees who were selected based on their loyalty to the president rather than their competency and impartiality.

This is a bad idea under any administration – Republican or Democrat.

Mark Hague was a career employee of the Environmental Protection Agency for 35 years and then served in a political appointment as the Regional Administrator of EPA’s Midwest Region in Kansas City from 2015-2017. Mr. Hague currently serves as the Board Chair of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization of hundreds of career staff and confirmation-level appointees from Democratic and Republican administrations who volunteer their time to provide their unique perspective based on decades of historical knowledge and subject matter expertise.

Share

Subscribe now

We know it’s been a while since you last heard from us. We’re back, and in 2026 we’re focused on turning the tide, building momentum, and taking action. This past year made clear just how fragile clean air, safe water, and public health protections can be, and how powerful people can be when they refuse to take them for granted. Check out EPN’s latest to see how we plan to do exactly that from EPN Senior Director of Public Affairs, Marc Boom.

Share Environmental Protection News

In 2025, Trump’s EPA team abandoned public health and the environment. In 2026, we turn the tide.

In 2024, voters elected Trump president for many reasons, but did voters actually want the EPA dismantled? Our first order of business after the election was finding the answer, and so EPN commissioned a public opinion poll for the first time in our history.

The answer was clear. They did not.

In fact, 64% of Trump voters and 88% of all voters were concerned that Trump would turn EPA over to someone who will “put the interests of polluting corporations ahead of protecting clean water, clean air, and public health.”

Which, of course, is exactly what happened. By summer 2025, only 29% of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s handling of the environment and climate change, and two-thirds believed EPA should be maintained or expanded—not reduced.

Americans care about their health. They care about fairness. They care about holding polluters accountable. And they are increasingly alarmed by what is happening at EPA.

The Damage Done

A week after winning the 2024 election, Donald Trump named former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin to head EPA. Zeldin had no environmental background but had been a fierce Trump defender during impeachment. The appointment signaled that loyalty and industry interests would trump science, expertise, and public health.

For the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), founded in 2017 by former EPA staff to defend science, public health, and environmental protections during Trump’s first term, the warning signs were unmistakable.

“Donald Trump’s plans for EPA are a five-alarm emergency—with the health of millions of Americans hanging in the balance,” EPN’s Executive Director, Michelle Roos, publicly warned at the time. “The fight to save EPA begins now.”

Michelle was right.

There is no minimizing the harm done at EPA over the past year. The agency’s current political leadership, made up of industry lobbyists and executives, has worked aggressively to sideline scientific expertise, weaken enforcement, and advance an outrageous deregulatory agenda tailored to the oil and chemical industries.

Using dubious legal authority, they canceled $2.5 billion in grants to communities with environmental justice concerns, undermining plans for critically important environmental and economic improvements.

The agency has been hollowed out. Nearly 4,000 positions—about a quarter of the agency—were vacated in 2025 through forced exits, intimidation, retaliation, and deliberate campaigns to put employees “in trauma.” Others have left involuntarily—some as part of a purge of all things considered “environmental justice” under Trump, and others as retaliation for sending Lee Zeldin a letter that told the truth of what was happening at EPA.

When inspectors, scientists, and engineers are pushed out, corporate interests go unchallenged, polluters get a free pass, and communities pay the price.

In total, the actions by EPA’s political leaders over the last year have endangered public health, eroded trust, and left communities more vulnerable to pollution.

But that is not the whole story.

Equally real, though far less visible amid the daily barrage of bad news, has been the determined, coordinated resistance. Communities, scientists, current and former EPA staff, lawyers, unions, states, and nonprofit organizations have relentlessly pushed back on the Trump EPA’s harmful agenda. That pushback has slowed, weakened, and in some cases stopped parts of this toxic agenda.

Throughout 2025, we saw again and again that public engagement, expert advocacy, and sustained pressure matter.

As 2026 dawns, this collective effort has laid a foundation for something critical—the turning of the tide. We have seen that progress is possible once we undo the public disengagement that polluters have been counting on.

Three Sources of Hope in 2026:

As destructive as 2025 was, it also revealed three clear, and growing, sources of momentum against EPA’s harmful approach. At first, these appeared as a trickle. By year’s end, they were gaining real force.

1) Communities everywhere are fighting back

Across the country, frontline community leaders and advocates have doubled down, fighting for environmental justice, even in the face of significant obstacles. People living with pollution don’t have the luxury of tuning out.

In heavily polluted neighborhoods in places like Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, industrial corridors in Houston and Chicago, and in cities throughout North Carolina, residents are organizing protests, filing civil rights complaints, and suing to challenge EPA’s retreat from environmental justice enforcement. Meanwhile, reports show community leaders, church groups, and local EJ organizations are gathering health data, partnering with national advocates, and pressing state regulators and city officials to step in where federal oversight has been weakened.

For example, in Seattle, as the federal government canceled $1.7 billion in environmental justice grants, the city moved in the opposite direction—awarding $1.2 million through its Environmental Justice Fund to grassroots organizations on the frontlines of climate change. The money, raised through a local payroll tax, is flowing directly to communities of color, immigrants, the elderly, and low-income residents.

In New Orleans, the Climate Action Equity Project brings community leaders from every city district to co-design resilience strategies, from flood protection to coastal restoration—filling the gap left by withdrawn federal support.

The federal retreat didn’t make pollution disappear; it made local leadership more urgent. These communities are proving that pressure for change can’t stop just because new leaders in Washington want to look away.

Another landmark example came when three Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program intermediaries—the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative in Baltimore, the Minneapolis Foundation, and Philanthropy Northwest—won a lawsuit via a strong summary judgement after EPA unlawfully terminated millions of dollars in grants solely to eliminate community-led environmental justice initiatives. The court ruled that EPA’s violation is “especially clear” since Congress had expressly established the program to advance environmental justice.

Although EPA is appealing the decision, hundreds of grants from these organizations are now moving forward—improving health, economic stability, and environmental conditions in communities long overburdened by pollution.

Beyond this case, state attorney generals, organizations like Lawyers for Good Government, and others are continuing the fight on behalf of communities in court and the prospect for more reversals appears good.

2) Trump’s toxic EPA agenda is weakening under pressure

Trump’s efforts to gut EPA’s public health protections and intimidate the civil servants who carry out the agency’s mission have been devastating. But they are no longer going unanswered. Headwinds from career staff, unions, states, the public, the courts, and Congress are growing stronger — and together, they are slowing, weakening, and in some cases reversing parts of this agenda.

Inside the agency, resistance has been real and costly. More than 140 career EPA employees put their jobs on the line to warn the public that Administrator Zeldin’s actions meant EPA was no longer living up to its mission. Efforts to silence these employees through retaliation and firings are now being challenged in court, while federal unions, the Environmental Protection Network, and allied organizations continue to stand with career staff. Attempts to bypass unions have also faltered: the House passed bipartisan legislation to repeal Trump’s executive order stripping union rights, and an arbitrator ruled that one of Zeldin’s signature union-busting efforts violated EPA’s labor contract with the American Federation of Government Employees.

Taken together, these internal and external pressures are changing the terrain EPA leadership is operating on.

Public pressure has also forced EPA leadership to retreat from several high-profile rollbacks. Plans to weaken long-standing asbestos protections and roll back drinking water standards for PFAS “forever chemicals” triggered swift backlash from scientists, advocates, and communities, and in multiple cases, EPA has backed down. Widely supported, consumer-facing programs like Energy Star have proven harder to dismantle once public scrutiny kicked in.

All $60 billion of the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) funding remains in implementation. That outcome reflects the same pushback that also protected programs like Clean School Buses and the IRA-funded Clean Ports Program from early elimination. These investments are moving forward because communities, advocates, and lawmakers refused to let them quietly disappear, and EPN is part of the broader effort to ensure they reach the schools, ports, and frontline neighborhoods they were designed to serve.

Zeldin’s proposal to cut the agency’s budget in half has drawn an ice-cold reception from congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. This week, House and Senate leaders introduced a bipartisan, bicameral compromise appropriations package that rejects the most extreme cuts proposed by the Administration, blocks many harmful policy riders, and reflects the leadership of Senate appropriators whose earlier bipartisan work helped shape provisions aimed at preserving EPA’s core mission. While the compromise falls short of the stronger Senate proposal—and still leaves the door open to further harm—it signals growing bipartisan backlash against Zeldin’s dismantling of EPA’s capacity. The package just passed the House last night by a 397-28 vote and Senate action is expected next week. EPN will continue urging lawmakers to build on this progress by fully restoring EPA’s science, workforce, and ability to protect public health.

What’s happening inside EPA and on Capitol Hill mirrors something else we’re seeing clearly: the public is paying attention again.

3) The public did not sign up for this. And they are catching on.

The public opposition reflected in EPN’s post-election poll has only grown more visible. By summer 2025, just 29% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the environment and climate change, and nearly two-thirds said EPA should be maintained or expanded—not reduced. That matters, because sustained public attention is one of the few forces powerful enough to slow even the most aggressive deregulatory agenda.

Signs of that pressure are already emerging in unexpected places. In December, leaders aligned with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement—a key Trump constituency—launched a petition calling for Administrator Zeldin to be fired. It has now gathered more than 15,000 signatures. When even parts of the political base begin to revolt, it signals that the costs of dismantling EPA are becoming harder to ignore.

That growing recognition is not just anger—it is leverage. As EPN Senior Advisor Jeremy Symons wrote recently, Trump’s toxic agenda at EPA is becoming toxic with the public.

Americans understand something fundamental: when corporations cut corners and emit more pollution to boost profits, the rest of us pay the price—through higher health risks, mounting medical bills, and long-term damage to communities. At the Environmental Protection Network, we believe truth still matters, especially when EPA experts are silenced. And the truth is this: weakened safeguards, sidelined science, and a hollowed-out workforce have already left Americans more exposed to toxic harm.

The Power of Volunteers

EPN’s work is powered by volunteers—mostly former EPA staff—who refuse to stand by while the agency’s mission is dismantled. Their experience and credibility are what make EPN effective when facts are under attack.

In 2025, EPN volunteers across the country put that expertise to work. They spoke with the media, wrote articles, trained advocates, supported communities facing pollution, and served as trusted experts in legal and policy challenges. Even when EPA’s current leadership ignored the facts, our volunteers made sure the truth was documented—because today’s record becomes tomorrow’s accountability.

Over the course of the year, EPN submitted public comments on 19 rollback efforts, provided congressional testimony six times, supported litigation, and delivered pro bono technical assistance to hundreds of frontline communities.

This collective effort shows what happens when expertise is organized and shared: science is defended, communities are not left alone, and the fight for public health remains very much alive.

Turning the Tide

The past year has shown both what is at risk and what is possible.

In 2026, EPN will continue to push back against harmful policies, stand with communities and EPA staff, defend science, and make the consequences of these decisions visible to the public. We will keep informing those who care but have not yet engaged—and help turn concern into action.

Clean air, safe water, and public health are the foundation for everything else. The past year showed what happens when those protections are taken for granted. The coming year will show what’s possible when people decide they won’t be.

Share

Subscribe now

The Endangerment Finding is not just a policy document. It is the legal backbone of climate protection in the United States. Repealing it is not a bureaucratic adjustment; it is a declaration of war on science, public health, and environmental justice.

In 2009, EPA concluded that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, based on mountains of peer-reviewed science and supported by landmark Supreme Court precedent. That determination gave the federal government both the authority and the obligation to limit climate pollution. For 15 years, it has been the foundation for reducing emissions from vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations.

Now, EPA has finalized its proposal to repeal the Endangerment Finding and, with it, the very idea that the federal government should protect people from the deadly effects of fossil fuel pollution.

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. Without this foundational rule, climate safeguards can’t stand. This repeal strips away EPA’s ability to regulate carbon pollution, leaving emissions unchecked and communities unprotected. And, it’s not just carbon dioxide that goes unregulated; power plants and refineries that emit greenhouse gases also release co-pollutants like particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and toxic metals, which drive up asthma rates, trigger heart attacks, and cut lives short. In fact, the administration is already taking aim at the very standards that limit these pollutants, including efforts to weaken protections under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and delay updated limits on fine particulate matter. These rollbacks threaten to cause thousands of premature deaths each year, disproportionately harming children, seniors, and low-income communities

We know the human cost because EPA has already calculated it.

When the agency finalized greenhouse gas standards for light-duty vehicles in 2024, it projected that the rules would: 

• prevent over 41,000 premature deaths between 2027 and 2055

• avoid 25.5 million asthma attacks

• save $13 billion annually in public health costs. 

Similar standards for trucks were expected to prevent another 41,400 premature deaths by 2055, eliminate 1.1 million lost school days by 2045, and reduce emissions by nearly a billion metric tons. 

Repealing the Endangerment Finding effectively erases these protections and opens the door to pollution on a mass scale.

Children will pay the price. So will seniors, frontline communities, and anyone already dealing with respiratory or cardiovascular disease. These are the very people who EPA is supposed to protect.

Instead, the agency is walking away from its core mission to serve industry interests at the expense of human lives.

The repeal also sabotages our economy. Clean energy investment depends on regulatory certainty. If you rip out the legal foundations of climate policy, you undermine every solar installation, every electric bus rollout, every methane rule that companies have already planned around. You send a message that science doesn’t matter and pollution has no price.

And, make no mistake: this is not about refining policy. It is a political stunt designed to gut environmental protections under the false flag of “energy dominance.” But, there is nothing dominant about letting fossil fuel companies dictate the future of public health. This is deregulation by design — with lethal consequences.

We’ve seen this playbook before: dismantle the law, discredit the science, and destabilize the institutions meant to protect the public. It’s not just environmental collapse. It’s democratic backsliding.

The Environmental Protection Network, made up of hundreds of former EPA officials from both parties, stands firmly against this repeal. We are calling on Congress to conduct oversight, the courts to intervene, and the public to raise its voice.

The science is clear.

The law is clear.

The consequences are deadly.

Repealing the Endangerment Finding is not just a policy choice; it is a public health crisis in the making. We must not allow political ideology to override the right to clean air, safe water, and a livable climate.

Silence is complicity. This is a moment for action.

Share

Subscribe now

Among the earliest and most revealing targets of this authoritarian agenda is environmental protection. In just the opening months of Trump’s second term, the administration has revived and escalated efforts to dismantle bedrock environmental safeguards. This week, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to rescind all federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. In tandem, it has advanced a repeal of the agency’s most recent update to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), regulations that are critical to limiting hazardous emissions such as mercury, arsenic, and other neurotoxicants from coal-fired power plants.

These actions are not merely deregulatory; they are existential. They endanger public health, compromise environmental stability, and further entrench corporate impunity. The consequences are not hypothetical. Scientific projections estimate that repealing or weakening just a fraction of EPA’s existing air rules could result in as many as 10,000 premature deaths each year, primarily due to increased exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), mercury, and ground-level ozone. One rule on soot pollution alone was expected to save up to 4,500 lives annually and prevent 800,000 asthma attacks. Vulnerable populations — children, the elderly, and those with chronic respiratory conditions — will bear the brunt of this regulatory abandonment.

This is environmental policy reconfigured as an instrument of authoritarian control.

Let us be clear: environmental protection is not peripheral to democracy. It is central. A functioning system of environmental governance depends on transparency, independent expertise, and regulatory decision-making rooted in the public interest. These are precisely the mechanisms autocratic regimes seek to dismantle.

The Trump administration’s environmental agenda is not an isolated policy orientation. It is a strategic facet of a broader campaign to erode democratic accountability. What is at stake is not merely environmental degradation but the hollowing out of democratic legitimacy.

The economic rationale is equally indefensible. EPA’s own prior analyses projected that the rollback of just five major air and water protections jeopardizes over $200 billion annually in net public benefits. Rescinding these protections puts at risk $275 billion in annual health-related savings, including avoided hospitalizations, reduced chronic illness, and fewer missed workdays. Clean air does not inhibit economic growth; it sustains it. It drives workforce productivity, attracts local investment, and reduces public health expenditures. Regulatory protections are not economic burdens; they are essential public health investments.

The historical precedents are sobering. From Nazi Germany’s extraction of natural resources to fuel imperial expansion, to the Soviet Union’s ecological devastation in the name of centralized industrialization, authoritarian regimes have repeatedly subordinated environmental stewardship to state control. More recently, leaders such as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orbán in Hungary deliberately targeted environmental institutions early in their campaigns against democratic norms. The United States is, once again, treading a perilously familiar path.

Yet, resistance is both possible and essential. Legal challenges, public mobilization, and the work of civil society have already constrained many of the Trump administration’s unlawful and scientifically baseless actions. The courts have proven critical in upholding statutory protections. Public health experts and environmental advocates have exposed procedural violations and regulatory malfeasance. Equally powerful has been the sustained engagement of ordinary citizens — in town halls, at public hearings, and in the streets— demanding accountability and defending their communities against harm. This broad-based defense of democratic rulemaking offers both precedent and a roadmap for the battles ahead.

The Environmental Protection Network and our allies remain committed to this fight.

We will oppose the repeal of MATS.

We will challenge the unlawful abandonment of carbon standards for power plants.

And, we will continue to assert that environmental protection is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional obligation rooted in the public’s right to health, safety, and scientific integrity.

Trump’s second term is testing the resilience of our institutions and the resolve of our civil society. We understand what is at stake. We recognize that acquiescence enables autocracy. And, we affirm that environmental protection is not simply a matter of policy. It is an act of democratic defense.

The question, as Maddow posed, is what we will allow. Our answer must be unequivocal: We will not permit environmental collapse to serve as the scaffolding for authoritarian power.

We will resist — methodically, legally, and unapologetically — because the defense of democracy and the defense of the environment are not separate imperatives. They are one and the same.

Thank you for tuning into Environmental Protection Network News. The proposed budget cuts to the EPA would have a devastating impact on our environment, human health and environmental justice work. Seven EPN volunteers came together to publish an op ed urging congress to reject the proposal and highlighting the specific areas in which the cuts would impact.

Share Environmental Protection News

Seven former EPA NY heads say budget cuts undermine agency

By: Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 administrators Jerry Hanler (Nixon administration), Charles “Chuck” Warren (Carter administration), Jeanne M. Fox (Clinton administration), Alan J. Steinberg (George W. Bush administration), Jane M. Kenny (George W. Bush administration), Judith Enck (Obama administration), and Lisa F. Garcia (Biden administration)

Congress created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with a clear and unambiguous mandate: to protect public health and the environment. For over five decades, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, that mission has been reinforced through bipartisan legislation to clean up hazardous waste, improve air and water quality, and assist states, territories, and tribal nations in safeguarding their communities. Congress also provided the EPA with funding, never excessive but historically sufficient, to fulfill those legal responsibilities.

Today, that foundation is under grave threat nationwide. The proposed 55% cut to EPA’s budget would reduce the agency’s capacity to its lowest level since its founding in 1970, at a time when environmental emergencies are becoming more frequent and more severe. From the catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles, to the recent deadly tornadoes in Kentucky and Oklahoma, to hurricanes like Helene that ravaged the East Coast, communities across the country rely on EPA’s expertise in emergency response, air and water monitoring, hazardous materials management, and environmental recovery. These are not regional concerns; they are national imperatives. Drastically reducing EPA’s funding undermines not only the mandate to provide clean air and clean water but also the government’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively when disaster strikes.

Here in Region 2, which includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and eight federally recognized tribal nations, EPA’s work has been central to health, safety, and environmental progress. EPA has helped clean up toxic Superfund sites like the Hudson River and the Raritan River, restored safe drinking water access in cities like Newark and San Juan, and supported air quality improvements that have reduced asthma rates and premature deaths. These aren’t abstractions; they are measurable public health and environmental victories.

But, they depend on federal funding and expertise. The proposed budget would slash $2.46 billion from the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, stalling long-overdue repairs to aging pipes in schools, homes, and hospitals. Drastic cuts to the Office of Research and Development would undermine the science that guides environmental policy. Eliminating the Environmental Justice program would turn a blind eye to communities long burdened by pollution.

Some argue that states should simply take on more of this responsibility. But, EPA was never designed to replace the states; it was built to support them. EPA provides technical assistance, enforcement backing, and funding for state and territory-run programs. Pulling federal support out from under states and territories won’t streamline regulation. It will leave communities with weaker protections, inconsistent enforcement, and fewer avenues for accountability.

President Trump’s recent claim that pollution has “zero impact” reflects a deep misunderstanding of both science and governance. Pollution has real, well-documented effects on human health, from cancer and developmental disorders to respiratory illness and premature death. EPA exists because Congress recognized that the consequences of pollution cross state lines and demand a national response.

Congress now faces a critical decision. Will it honor its own environmental laws by funding the agency charged with enforcing them? Or will it impose cuts that prevent EPA from doing what it was created to do?

We urge Congress to reject the proposed FY2026 budget cuts and restore full funding to EPA. Environmental protection isn’t partisan; it’s a matter of law, of science, and of basic public duty. Undermining the EPA won’t eliminate the costs of pollution. It will simply shift those costs to communities through higher health care bills, degraded ecosystems, and long-term harm to our children’s futures.

Congress set the mission. It must now stand up and continue to provide the means to fulfill it.

Share

Subscribe now

Share Environmental Protection News

On Earth Day, the White House declared that America finally has “a president who follows science.” Behind this carefully constructed message lies a disquieting reality: the administration is rapidly dismantling the very scientific and legal foundations of environmental protection. It is a textbook case of Orwellian doublespeak, language deliberately crafted to obscure or alter meaning in order to serve an ulterior motive. It is language that inverts truth and cloaks harmful actions in reassuring rhetoric, designed to suppress public understanding and distort the reality of what is at stake. 

The public rhetoric is one of renewal. The actual policy? A sweeping plan to roll back 31 bedrock clean air and water protections. Our network of hundreds of former EPA staff knows the difference between talk and action. Let us be clear: this is not simply about environmental regulations. It is about whether we as a nation will allow any political regime to reframe science as subversion, lawlessness as liberty, and polluted air and water as pristine.

Those who will suffer the most — children, the elderly, and low-income populations — are conspicuously absent from the administration’s celebratory Earth Day prose. According to our analysis of EPA’s own data, pulling back these regulations would cause over 200,000 preventable deaths and more than 100 million additional asthma attacks over the next 25 years. Communities will breathe more pollution, drink dirtier water, and face higher risks of cancer, heart disease, and developmental disorders. 

Though these rollbacks will take time to implement and will likely be challenged in court, the dismantling has already begun. EPA’s enforcement of these life-saving regulations is being gutted. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has ordered a halt to any enforcement that interferes with energy production, effectively prioritizing industry interests over public health and environmental protection. He also extended a lifeline to America’s biggest toxic polluters:  an invitation to bypass rules designed to limit toxic emissions by simply sending an email. This backchannel has opened the door to what amounts to a secretive process to seek out a new form of presidential pardon — in other words, a shadow pardon. The chemical industry’s lobbying arm has already requested a blanket exemption for more than 500 facilities in 45 states. 

This is not lawful discretion. It is the suspension of environmental law under a false banner of liberty. 

As Orwell warned, political language is designed to make lies sound truthful. Today, we see that dynamic in full. Words like “freedom,” “efficiency,” and “reform” are used to rationalize pollution, deregulation, and the erosion of statutory authority. The phrase “following science” becomes a rhetorical shield for policies that silence it.

The antidote to this corrosion of truth is the contagion of courage. Across the country, people are rising. From Michigan to North Carolina, concerned citizens are taking to the streets to defend people’s health, democratic values, and scientific integrity. Every institutional leader, lawmaker, regulator, or citizen who stands up and speaks out becomes a spark, igniting others to do the same.

Environmental protection has always required courage. The courage to listen to scientists when the data is inconvenient. The courage to enforce laws even when industry objects. And now, the courage to call out doublespeak when it is deployed to obscure damage, deny accountability, and dismantle decades of environmental progress.

Without mass submission, a tyrant is powerless. But, without mass courage, the truth becomes indistinguishable from propaganda.

We choose truth over rhetoric, enforcement over appeasement, and the contagion of courage over the comfort of silence. The public trust and the future of our planet demand nothing less.

Share

Subscribe now

The Trump administration is making accusations of fraud, waste, and abuse associated with federal environmental justice programs under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as justification for firing federal workers and defunding critical environmental programs. But the real waste, fraud, and abuse would be to strip away these funds from the American people.

As current and former employees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who developed and implemented the agency’s environmental justice funding and grant programs, we want to offer our first-hand insights about the efficiency and importance of this work. This is not about defending our paychecks. This is about protecting the health of our communities.

IRA funding is often described as a “once-in-a-generation investment,” putting billions of dollars toward improving the lives of American families in red, blue, and purple states. Working with communities, we’ve been placing these resources directly into their hands, supporting people to better protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land where we live, learn, work, play, and grow — including key protections from natural disasters. 

As civil servants, we took an oath to protect and invest in the American public. We are committed to providing effective programs and being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and there are many policies in place to ensure our accountability. But despite our careful planning and oversight, the new administration is halting programs Americans depend on for their health and wellbeing. 

We should work together to demand that the Trump administration restore this critical funding back to the people.

The risks of losing a once-in-a-generation investment

The Bush administration introduced environmental equity (and justice) programming to the EPA in the 1990s. EPA staff working on environmental justice programs partnered with communities to meet their needs and used rigorous systems to track funds and results. 

The Trump administration recently paused many of these environmental justice programs that fund community-led projects like air, water, and soil testing; training and workforce development; construction or cleanup projects; gardens and tree planting; and preparing and responding to natural disasters. Other examples of the EPA’s environmental justice programs include providing safe shelters during and after hurricanes, land cleanups to reduce communities’ exposure to harmful pollutants, and providing water filters to protect residents from lead in drinking water.  

This administration has halted funds, claiming “the objectives of the awards are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.” In reality, these funds were approved by Congress, and these grants remain in alignment with the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment. Even though there are court orders to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal grants, the Trump administration continues to withhold this critical money from the people who need it most.

We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable to serving the American people, applying the same mandates that we have held our federal workforce and grant recipients to: follow the law, follow the science, and be transparent.

Terminating the EPA’s environmental justice programs is hurting our communities and the economy

Some grant recipients who have lost access to EPA funding had already been working for more than a year on projects that must now be paused. Many recipients have hired local employees and made commitments in their communities.

Now that funds are being pulled back, these organizations have had to lay off staff, pause local contracts with private companies and small businesses, and shut down community-driven projects. These attacks will impact the integrity of programs funded by our hard-earned tax dollars and take money away from communities across the country. 

By withholding promised funding and terminating existing contracts, the Trump administration is exposing the EPA to increased risks of litigation. Relationships that were built through years of meaningful engagement between communities and the federal government are being jeopardized. Organizations, institutions, and companies will likely shy away from future federal grant or contracting opportunities because no one wants to work with someone who doesn’t pay their bills and backs out on their promises.  

It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for the U.S. Government to cancel its agreements with grantees and contractors. It is fraud for the U.S. Government to delay payments for services already received. And it is an abuse of power for the Trump administration to block the IRA laws that were mandated by Congress.

How to take action to restore funding to the American people 

It can feel impossible to keep up with the news right now, but this story touches all of us. We should pay attention to what’s going on in our communities and find ways to stay engaged, like attending town halls to hear about the local impacts of federal policies and making your voice heard.

If you are interested in advocating for the return of federal funding to the American people, we urge you to:

• Advocate for funding to be restored in your community. Take part in local town hall and other events in your area to advocate for federal funding to be returned to the people. Make your voice heard and claim your right to clean water, clean air, and a safe environment.

• Learn how the EPA’s environmental justice programs are investing in your state, city, or community. View this environmental justice grants map to see where IRA dollars and funding from the EPA’s environmental justice programs were invested.

• Learn how federal cuts are impacting your communities. Stay tuned to view a Federal Cuts Tracker Map (we’ll add a link here when it’s live) to read and share stories about how federal cuts are currently impacting your communities.

• Share on social media. Share our story or similar news stories on social media with  #federalfundingfreeze, #federalcuts, or #truthtopower.

Share

Subscribe now

February 27, 2025

Administrator Lee Zeldin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Zeldin –

Until January 20, I was the Regional Administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency in Region 5, serving six Midwestern states and 37 Tribal nations. The proudest day of my life was when I joined the team of smart, devoted professionals at Region 5 who had a shared sense of mission – namely, to protect human health and the environment.

As I am sure you are finding, Administrator Zeldin, every one of these public servants provides critical services, striving daily to ensure that all Americans have clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and places to live and work that are not laced with toxic chemicals.

Let me tell you about some of these civil servants, the folks who have been summarily dismissed without cause, with no due process, in many cases with only 30 minutes’ notice, merely because they had been at their positions for less than a year. Some of these were EPA’s emergency responders in training, the people who show up at the site of train derailments and warehouse fires, at oil spills and leaking underground storage tanks, in the aftermath of tornadoes and hurricanes, wildfires and floods to find and safely dispose of hazardous wastes. Some were in training to inspect water and wastewater treatment plants or chemical manufacturing plants, to find methane leaks in landfills, and assist communities with replacement of lead service lines, to oversee grants to protect and restore water quality and healthy fisheries in the Great Lakes, to hold polluting industries accountable so that they pay for cleaning up dirty air and contaminated soils. What a waste to dismiss these smart, dedicated civil servants in whom the American people have invested for nearly a year.

These are the chemists testing air and water samples, the community engagement folks reaching out to communities that have been burdened by polluting industries for too long, and the rural assistance advisors working with farmers to restore healthy soils and to reduce nutrient loading in rivers and streams and harmful nitrates in well water. But now, the safeguards built into our federal system that have resulted in much cleaner air, water and land over the last 50 years are in peril.

Administrator Zeldin, I happen to be Jewish, and I have been asking myself as I see the wrenching disruption and pain caused by the abrupt firing of these civil servants, how is this consonant with Jewish values? Is this treating others the way we would wish to be treated? And for those in the administration who profess to be devout Christians, I ask, is this treating people the way the loving Jesus of Nazareth preached? I know Pope Francis has called the Earth “our common home.” I believe that no matter what our faith tradition, we all have a sacred obligation to protect and restore human communities and the rest of Nature on which we all utterly depend.

The folks at EPA are good people, Administrator Zeldin. You have said as much yourself. They deserve your respect and trust. Do better.

Sincerely,

Debra Shore

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 5 (2021-2025)

Share

Subscribe now

Share Environmental Protection News

In January, Environmental Protection Network volunteers Dr. Thomas H. Sinks, Dr. Elizabeth Southerland, Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, and Dr. William Jordan published a research paper about the importance of scientific integrity (SI) in public policy and how to uphold and strengthen scientific integrity practices. In light of the change in administration, it’s important to note that scientific integrity will be tested and at risk. The Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” series, for example, encourages political interference in science. And, during President Donald Trump’s first term, there were several instances of his administration attempting to undermine the scientific process, including interference with pesticide and toxicity assessments and the exclusion of scientists while drafting policy such as the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule.

The paper, “Scientific Integrity Promotes the Best Science and Informs the Public of Regulatory Policy Decisions,” highlights the importance of scientific integrity and lays out a detailed plan on how to protect it based on the research conducted. 

The paper opens with “Scientific integrity policies and procedures promote academic and institutional environments where high quality and objective science can be conducted and results communicated to the public.” This sentiment is echoed by the authors throughout the rest of the article. 

Scientific integrity is not just a buzzword — it’s the foundation for credible research and informed policymaking. Scientifically educated civil servants are crucial in the drafting of law, policy and court opinion. Replacing them with political appointees will undermine the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and negatively impact public trust in government. 

Due to its importance, scientific integrity needs to be protected and codified under the law. An executive order is not enough, as it is not a long-term solution and can be easily reversed by future administrations. Amending the America Competes Act of 2007 to require scientific integrity policies at all federal agencies would be a big step in the right direction. Congress must take action and amend the act to institutionalize practices that prevent political interference, ensure transparency and protect scientists from retaliation. 

While the fight for scientific integrity is an uphill battle, the paper ensures to acknowledge the robust framework and protections EPA has already put in place.

“The agency’s SI policy, quality assurance, and independent peer review rank among the best across all federal agencies,” the authors write. 

A key element of this SI policy is its explicit prohibition of political interference — pushing political appointees away from opportunities to suppress, delay or alter scientific findings. This further ensures that decision making is informed by credible evidence and should be a blueprint for SI policies across all agencies.

EPA has also established procedures such as independent peer reviews and transparent quality assurance protocols to ensure the quality and reliability of scientific findings. Data are reviewed by external experts to minimize bias and maintain credibility. 

The agency has made efforts to educate employees about the SI policy and a survey conducted in 2018 showed that 93% of employees were aware of the policy. 

More recently, the EPA employees’ union, The American Federation of Government Employees, ratified a contract that includes a clause offering additional protections for scientists against retaliation or interference. 

While these efforts to protect SI should be celebrated, the enormous uphill battle ahead is where the focus should be; lest scientists be driven away from public service and, in turn, decimating institutional knowledge and credible policymaking decisions. 

“Scientists in every discipline should conduct their work without fear of retaliation, manipulation, or suppression,” the authors state. “Actions taken now to restore public confidence in government science and strengthen science infrastructure will protect people’s health and the environment, and the scientific soundness of tomorrow’s actions.”

Read the full paper here.

Share

Subscribe now

A Bittersweet 50th Anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act

In 2024, EPA set out to meaningfully celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by putting new regulations in place that would further the strong health protections embodied in the law. In April 2024, EPA finalized standards for 6 PFAS chemicals, protecting over 100 million people from deadly cancers, liver and heart disease as well as immune and developmental problems in children. These were the first new drinking water standards set since the 1996 amendments to the SDWA created an incredibly high bar for regulating any new contaminant. 

EPA celebrated with another major achievement in October 2024 by finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule that for the first time set a deadline for replacing all the lead pipes that carry drinking water from water mains to homes and businesses. Lead pipes were banned under the SDWA in 1986 because it was then known that there was no safe level of lead in drinking water. Their replacement will finally protect another generation from exposure. 

The celebrations may soon end as a tragic result of the 2024 election. In a recent Senate hearing on the 50^th anniversary of SDWA, Senator Shelley Moore Capito declared that as the incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she will work with the Trump administration to address the Biden administration’s overly broad and poorly balanced SDWA regulations. Senator Capito clearly expects that the Trump EPA will replace both the PFAS and lead and copper rules. Attempts to weaken these rules will have significant public health impacts.

EPA’s new PFAS drinking water standards were based on a rigorous scientific review of hundreds of animal and human studies demonstrating the toxic effects of these 6 chemicals, and a detailed analysis showing that the benefits of meeting these standards far exceed the costs. Recognizing the challenges of meeting the standards, EPA gave water utilities until 2029 to comply. Unfortunately, water utility trade groups joined chemical companies to challenge the new standards in federal court. Based on Senator Capito’s comments, it is likely the Trump Department of Justice will not defend the standards, and the Trump EPA will replace the rule with weaker standards. 

If the Trump EPA raises the allowable concentration of these 6 PFAS in drinking water, many people will be harmed. From 2023 to 2025, EPA is monitoring 29 PFAS chemicals in the drinking water of all large and midsize public water systems in the country. The agency has already collected 55% of the total data, and the results show that 12% of the water systems exceed one or more of the 6 PFAS standards. The data indicate the frequent presence of more than one PFAS chemical. Most of the systems exceeding one or more of the PFAS standards have multiple PFAS chemicals in their drinking water, and there is no information on the safe level of 16 of the PFAS detected. If water systems install the treatment needed to meet the 6 PFAS standards, they will also reduce the co-occurring, unregulated PFAS chemicals and any detrimental health risks they pose.   

Weaker PFAS drinking water standards will result in many fewer drinking water systems being required to treat the water to reduce these toxic chemicals. The water systems that do not exceed the new, higher standards will continue to have multiple PFAS in their drinking water, none of which will be reduced no matter how toxic they are. The water systems that exceed the new, higher standards will have to treat, but treatment will be delayed most likely for 10 years as the Trump EPA will need four years to redo the standards with another five years allowed for compliance.

The final Lead and Copper Rule is also at serious risk of being weakened. It required most water systems to replace their lead service lines within 10 years of the 2027 effective date of the rule. Water systems with exceptionally large numbers of lead service lines were given even longer to complete the replacement, up to 20 years in the case of Chicago. Congress could use the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which gives it the power to invalidate final rules under certain conditions, to repeal this new rule. Or the Trump administration could decide to repeal and replace it with weaker requirements. The 2024 Lead and Copper Rule replaced a Trump administration 2021 rule that only required water systems to replace lead service lines if they could not reduce lead concentrations by controlling corrosion in the lines that leaches lead into drinking water. If corrosion controls failed to reduce lead concentrations, water systems were given up to 30 years to replace the lead service lines. The new Trump administration could repeal the new rule and replace it with a version of the 2021 rule, or a rule that allows all water systems many more years to replace their lead service lines.  

If Congress uses the CRA to repeal the lead and copper improvement rule or the Trump administration decides to replace it with weaker requirements, yet another generation of Americans will be exposed to unsafe levels of lead in drinking water. EPA estimated that every year the 2024 rule is in effect, it will protect up to 900,000 infants from low birthweight, prevent up to 2,600 children from experiencing ADHD, reduce up to 1,500 cases of premature death from heart disease, and prevent the loss of up to 200,000 IQ points in children. EPA also projected that the health and other benefits of the new rule will exceed the costs of implementation by $13 billion annually. All of these benefits will be lost if Congress or the Trump administration repeals the new lead and copper improvement rule.

Fifty years ago, Congress recognized the critical need to protect the Nation’s drinking water and passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. Furthering the intent of the law, last year, EPA set drinking water standards for new chemicals that pose significant cancer and other health risks, and for the first time set a deadline for the replacement of lead service lines, the main source of lead in drinking water. The American people cannot afford to lose the significant nationwide health benefits of these new rules.

Share

Subscribe now

Share Environmental Protection News

Bridging the Energy Gap: Inside EPA’s Solar for All Program 

By: Davina Resto

The Biden/Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative and historic Inflation Reduction Act have been key in getting critically needed resources to disadvantaged communities fighting for environmental and energy justice. Federal agencies from across all sectors are looking to get this money where it needs to go, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has definitely taken up that charge. From $2 billion in Community Change Grants to $27 billion in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), EPA has funded programs aimed at addressing systemic inequities in energy affordability and climate change. Coming out of the GGRF, the Solar for All program marks another historic investment, with $7 billion granted to 60 grantees nationwide.

The Solar for All program hopes to address two critical issues: the disproportionate energy burden low-income communities face and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) low-income communities spend a higher portion of their income on utility bills than wealthier households, finding that 1 in 4 low-income families spend more than 15% of their income on energy bills. Access to affordable energy and environmental justice are intertwined and often affect communities of color the most. Solar energy can play a role not only in climate resilience but also in breaking down the barriers to providing affordable and clean renewable energy where it matters. The program can also bring environmental and economic benefits and drive community development, but how exactly are the Solar for All grantees planning to execute that? 

Among the awardees, several groups stand out. The New York State and Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA)’s goal, with over $200 million in funding, is to expand its already successful community solar projects aimed at low-income households while also deploying workforce development programs across the state. The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) is looking to take a big swing at this program by reducing over 70,000 tons of carbon emissions. 

“Solar For All is an unprecedented opportunity to help our low-income, environmental justice and Justice 40 communities, who have been historically underserved by clean energy programs, benefit from renewable, affordable solar energy. Massachusetts’ programs are expected to lower annual carbon emissions by 70,500 tons, reduce energy costs for over 31,000 low-income and disadvantaged households, and support almost 3,000 clean energy jobs. We are excited to put these funds to work to improve health in communities across the state and take our solar programming to the next level,” said Elizabeth Mahoney, Commissioner of Massachusetts DOER. 

The Industrial Heartland Solar Coalition, another notable award winner, is looking to build out a program that ”will achieve household energy savings, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and train individuals in solar workforce development programs,” across 8 states and 31 communities. The Midwest Tribal Energy Resource Association (MTERA) plans to develop Tribally-owned residential solar across 35 Tribes in the Midwest. 

“High energy costs and frequent outages have long hindered resilience and self-sufficiency in many Tribal communities, affecting daily life and economic potential. The EPA’s Solar for All program is a game changer, empowering Tribes to develop and manage their own solar solutions. This initiative provides not just clean energy; it also supports Tribal sovereignty and equips Tribal communities with the tools to create lasting, community-driven change. At MTERA, we are honored to collaborate with Midwest Tribes to establish a foundation for a sustainable and resilient future—one that reduces emissions and delivers reliable, affordable energy solutions directly to Tribal lands. The impact is significant: We are not only promoting clean energy; we are also nurturing self-determination and a stronger, self-sustaining future for generations to come,” said Vanessa Farley, Director of Tribal Energy Programs, Midwest Tribal Energy Resources Association (MTERA).

In evaluating their success, it’s important to be on the lookout for whether these programs uplift communities by empowering residents and giving them more control of their energy resources. By definition, community-driven solar projects must involve community input. And while the potential benefits to communities are clear, the path forward may not be. The Solar for All program faces many challenges, such as targeting areas where solar is most needed such as rural communities with outdated electrical grid systems, and it stands to be tested if $7 billion will be enough to meet the needs and high costs of solar. But the greatest challenge may be in overcoming potential resistance from utility companies that have long burdened communities with increased rates and have a firm grip on the grid. 

Though the journey forward seems challenging, the Solar for All program marks a significant step in the right direction in addressing gaps in energy and environmental justice. As the effects of climate change only increase, programs like Solar For All can ensure that resources get to communities that have been historically left behind. 

“When you want to make big changes in your community, you need to work in partnerships with a variety of groups. EPA's Solar for All program encourages government bodies, non-government organizations, and academic institutions to work together. The end result will not only bring clean energy and lower utility bills to underserved communities, but also build a green workforce of skilled laborers, and reduce unemployment. Everyone wins,” said Mardi Klevs, Environmental Protection Network volunteer. 

The many innovative and transformative projects coming out of this program, have enormous potential to lower energy costs, reduce pollution, and improve people’s health and their quality of life, especially in low-income communities and communities of color.

About Davina Resto: Davina Resto is a Senior Community Outreach Associate with EPN's pro bono capacity-building technical assistance program. Davina concentrates on creating new and deeper connections between disadvantaged communities, EPA alumni with decades of expertise, and other allies to provide assistance to community identified projects in EPA Regions 1 and 2. She also facilitates and leads EPN’s partnerships with Tribes and indigenous people.

Share

Subscribe now

Share Environmental Protection News

Project 2025 Will Gut the EPA

By: Christine Todd Whitman and Carol M. Browner

Overlooked in all the descriptions, debates, and denials of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, their playbook for the next administration, is the devastating plan they’ve outlined for our environment and our climate, especially the dangerous plans for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

In our former roles leading the EPA, we witnessed the dedication and ethic of service that guides EPA employees day in and day out as they worked to protect people from dangerous pollution. The EPA’s mission is to protect our health and environment by enforcing our environmental laws and setting pollution standards for clean air, clean water, and a host of other protections from pollution.

However, Project 2025 would put an end to this critical work.

Project 2025 creates a roadmap that will obstruct the EPA’s ability to act. The chapter devoted to the EPA was written by six former Trump administration EPA political appointees, including his former EPA Chief of Staff.

Given the profound damage done to the EPA under President Trump during his first term, it’s hard to envision how the agency’s mission could be diminished further.  Trump virtually ended science-based policy development, he reversed EPA standards on climate pollution, and he gutted the agency’s professional staff.

Yet, it could be even worse. Under Project 2025, polluters would be handed control of the very agency meant to oversee them and allowed to develop policies as they see fit. This, without question, will harm the air we breathe and the water we drink, putting the priorities and profits of polluters before our health.

A recent analysis conducted by the Environmental Protection Network, a non-partisan association of 650 former EPA staff who volunteer their time to support the EPA’s work, tallied the net health benefits of EPA policies and programs during the Biden-Harris administration. The report found that updated air pollution rules for smokestacks and tailpipes achieved during the Biden administration will prevent 100 million asthma attacks and save more than 200,000 lives through 2050.

Think about that for a moment. 

If you have a friend, relative or loved one who suffers from asthma, you know the struggles to breathe; the missed workdays and school days; and the too-frequent visits to the hospital or doctor. And 200,000 premature deaths averted is equivalent to filling Michigan Stadium twice.  

The EPA’s air pollution rules established over the past three years will deliver $250 billion in net annual benefits. Put together, the public health and climate benefits of the clean air standards alone will exceed compliance costs by trillions of dollars through 2050.

Notably, the report examined only clean air standards and did not consider the health benefits of other standards the Biden EPA implemented, such as protections against toxic chemicals, polluted water, and other severe environmental threats.

This progress – and more – is what’s at stake if Project 2025 comes to fruition. 

While Project 2025’s direct attacks on the EPA’s work are bad enough, the plan is also an overt effort to politicize a federal agency. Project 2025 explicitly calls for replacing civil service experts with political appointees beholden only to the president. That puts core EPA functions like science-based policy making, law enforcement, and environmental justice initiatives under the thumb of industry-friendly partisans installed to replace career experts. 

This is no way to protect our health and environment.

The EPA was created under President Richard Nixon with bipartisan support because everyone has a stake in a healthy environment. During Trump’s administration we already witnessed the harms that can result when important public health agencies like the EPA are disempowered by partisans and industry interests.

The EPA should protect all Americans and especially our most vulnerable citizens – children, senior citizens, at-risk communities and communities of color – that disproportionately bear the brunt of pollution. Project 2025 would render the agency utterly unable to achieve these vital objectives; it will roll back almost all of the progress of the last three years. We cannot go back.

Christine Todd Whitman is president of the Whitman Strategy Group. She served as the 50^th Governor of New Jersey and Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush.

Carol M. Browner is a former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and served as Assistant to President Barack Obama and Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

Share

Subscribe now

Share Environmental Protection News

Project 2025 is a Scorched Earth Attack on EPA and its Mission

By: David Coursen

The EPA section of presidential transition Project 2025, the notorious roadmap for a conservative administration, launches a radical assault on the agency and its historic commitment to protecting the people’s health and the environment. Much has been written by former EPA senior officials and others on the specific areas of the agency’s work that would be undermined and undercut by this dangerous plan. But the overall plan, which covers almost every aspect of EPA’s job, is nothing less than devastating. Its implementation would accelerate global warming, increase air pollution, destroy millions of clean energy jobs, slow the economy, and cripple environmental enforcement and efforts to address environmental injustice. It would replace EPA career civil servants working to protect the environment with political appointees working to advance a polluter-friendly agenda. 

Its centerpiece is the root and branch destruction of EPA’s program to control greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, a principal cause of the catastrophically warming climate. It proposes to eliminate clean energy incentives, block regulations, and “update” –i.e. reverse– EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gas pollutants endanger public health. That finding provides the legal basis for EPA GHG regulation and reversing it is a virtual Holy Grail for climate deniers that would terminate existing regulatory measures to address GHG emissions and block future ones. Project 2025 offers no legal or scientific rationale for reversing the finding, and ballooning evidence of the “worsening” effects of a warming climate suggests that the danger has increased, an inconvenient fact unlikely to deter climate denial “true believers” from proceeding, possibly hoping for the approval of an increasingly conservative judiciary. 

Project 2025’s anti-GHG provisions would have staggering consequences. They would add billions of tons to annual GHG emissions and enough new non-GHG air pollution to produce six thousand extra premature deaths in 2030. And implicit claims that the plan would have economic benefits are baseless. One source estimates it would wipe out almost 4 million jobs (even after accounting for new fossil fuel production jobs), reduce U.S. GDP by $770 billion, and increase household energy costs by $40 billion by 2030.   

Project 2025 also eliminates EPA’s environmental justice and enforcement offices, dispersing their functions and staff across the agency, inevitably reducing their effectiveness. That change flies in the face of no evidence that serious environmental violations are widespread, with a relative handful of facilities responsible for a large share of the pollution and much of the brunt falling on disadvantaged communities. Effective enforcement and environmental justice are essential for combating widespread violations and finding and addressing disproportionate burdens.

More generally, Project 2025 would transform EPA’s mission from controlling pollution to reducing polluters' costs. It suggests tolerating widespread and deadly groundwater contamination from toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” and focusing EPA research on pollution not caused by industry. It would reverse the “precautionary principle,” which protects the public from exposure to potential harms that are uncertain, effectively giving polluters the benefit of the doubt; relieving them of the costs of precautions shifts the risks of uncertainty onto the public.  

Project 2025 also includes sweeping attacks on EPA’s science program, which provides states and EPA with the reliable information about pollution and its impacts that EPA statutes require to support regulatory decisions. Absent EPA science, information might come largely from industry experts who have built-in conflicts of interest from their economic incentives to reduce regulatory costs. The EPA section also advocates removing mainstream scientists from advisory bodies and making room for more “diverse” viewpoints, potentially including cranks, quacks, and crackpots, along with more industry scientists. EPA Project 2025 includes implausible claims, such as sweeping assertions, unsupported by evidence or examples, that “much of” EPA’s science “work has not been authorized by law,” and that EPA “experienced massive growth” during the Obama administration (when EPA full-time staff fell from 17,049 to 15,408).  

A cornerstone of Project 2025 is the wholesale replacement of career civil servants with political appointees, placing loyalty to the president over competence. The EPA section recommends placing political appointees in scientific and technical positions, where they may lack competence to do the work properly and could be well-positioned to suppress or manipulate data to support politically preferred outcomes. The EPA plan also calls for more top-down decision-making, with less room for input from career professional staff, and endorses measures to encourage senior staff resisting a political agenda to leave the agency, reducing the organization’s integrity, expertise and institutional memory.

Project 2025 claims to “deconstruct the Administrative State.” But pretentious academic jargon cannot put lipstick on this pig: the Project 2025 EPA plan is a blast of toxic nihilism to demolish informed regulatory governance and replace it with polluter-friendly authoritarianism. It must be rejected.  

About David Coursen: David Coursen is an expert in the Clean Air Act, Environmental Justice, and Constitutional and Administrative Law. He formerly served in the EPA Office of General Counsel.

Share

Subscribe now