Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

"Had this rule censoring science been allowed to stand," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), "it could have done massive damage to the EPA's ability to regulate dangerous chemicals and pollutants." (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

"Had this rule censoring science been allowed to stand," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), "it could have done massive damage to the EPA's ability to regulate dangerous chemicals and pollutants." (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

In Victory for Public Health, Federal Judge Scraps Trump's Polluter-Friendly 'Censored Science' Rule

"Science matters again, and it will again guide how to best protect people from dangerous pollution and toxic chemicals."

Kenny Stancil

In a development welcomed by environmental and public health advocates, a federal judge on Monday invalidated the Trump administration's last-minute rule change dictating which types of research the Environmental Protection Agency can use to regulate polluting industries and toxic chemicals.

Judge Brian Morris, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls, vacated the rule at the request of the Biden administration, overturning one of former President Donald Trump's last actions taken prior to leaving office.

"Had this rule censoring science been allowed to stand, it could have done massive damage to the EPA's ability to regulate dangerous chemicals and pollutants."
—Rep. Don Beyer

"It took a federal court just days to reject the Trump EPA's obvious lawbreaking," Vijay Limaye, a climate and health scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in a statement. "This is a major victory for people's health."

"Science matters again," said Limaye, "and it will again guide how to best protect people from dangerous pollution and toxic chemicals."

Just two weeks before the inauguration of President Joe Biden, then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, previously a coal lobbyist, finalized the "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule, which required scientists to disclose raw data, including personal medical records, from their public health studies before the agency could enact new regulations based upon the research.

Because the EPA relies heavily on data that cannot, for ethical and legal reasons, be made public, the rule change would force the EPA "to stick its head in the sand and pretend the most vital science about people's health doesn't exist," Emily Knobbe of the Center for Biological Diversity said in early January.

The Washington Post noted that "the rule, which was made effective immediately, would assign less weight to studies built on medical histories and other confidential data from human subjects where the underlying information was not revealed. That sort of research—including dose-response studies, which evaluate how much a person's exposure to a substance increases the risk of harm—have been used for decades to justify EPA regulations."

As Common Dreams reported last month, the Trump administration's so-called "secret science" rule was widely condemned, with Knobbe calling it a "nightmarish giveaway to polluters [that] will sicken millions of the most vulnerable people across this country."

The Environmental Defense Fund, Montana Environmental Information Center, and Citizens for Clean Energy sued to block the implementation of the "censored science" rule.

Last Wednesday, as Bloomberg Law reported, Morris ruled that the Trump administration's EPA "failed to justify its decision to make the controversial rule take effect right after its publication in the Federal Register, instead of after 30 days, as is typical."

By "casting doubt on the rule's legality," Bloomberg Law noted, Morris created an opening for Biden to quickly undo Trump's rule change, which the White House took advantage of.

Officials in the Biden administration's EPA on Sunday pointed to Morris' January 27 ruling and asked him to vacate the "censored science" rule and send it back to the agency, a request the judge granted on Monday. According to Bloomberg Law, Monday's decision saves the Biden administration "the significant time and resources it would have had to spend to unwind the Trump administration rule through a standard rulemaking process."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the House Science Committee, has been a vocal opponent of what he and committee colleagues, Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), recently called the Trump administration's "anti-science rule and its underlying agenda, which is to protect polluters rather than people and the planet."

In a celebratory Twitter thread shared on Tuesday, Beyer described the Republican Party's years-in-the-making attempt to undermine EPA regulations "by weakening the scientific basis behind the agency's rulemaking process under the guise of 'transparency.'"

Beyer characterized the federal judge's decision to invalidate Trump's attack on scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking as yet another loss for the former president in court, "this time with huge implications for public health."

"Had this rule censoring science been allowed to stand," he said, "it could have done massive damage to the EPA's ability to regulate dangerous chemicals and pollutants."

"The court's decision," the congressman added, "opens the doors to vital progress to protect the environment and the public."

As the NRDC's Limaye noted, "Polluters—who backed the Trump EPA's insidious scheme—have no more excuses than to follow our bedrock environmental laws."

This story has been updated to correct that the name of the organization is the Montana Environmental Information Center, not Montana Information Center as it originally stated.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

'How Many More Deaths Must It Take?' Barbados Leader Rips Rich Nations in Fierce UN Speech

"How many more variants of Covid-19 must arrive, how many more, before a worldwide plan for vaccinations will be implemented?"

Jake Johnson ·


To Avert Debt Ceiling Calamity, Democrats Urged to Finally Kill the Filibuster

"The solution is to blow up the filibuster at least for debt limit votes, just as Mitch blew it up to pack the Supreme Court for his big donors."

Jake Johnson ·


Biden Decries 'Outrageous' Treatment of Haitians at Border—But Keeps Deporting Them

"I'm glad to see President Biden speak out about the mistreatment of Haitian asylum-seekers. But his administration's use of Title 42 to deny them the right to make an asylum claim is a much bigger issue."

Jessica Corbett ·


Global Peace Activists Warn of Dangers of US-Led Anti-China Pacts

"No to military alliances and preparation for catastrophic wars," anti-war campaigners from over a dozen nations write in a letter decrying the new AUKUS agreement. "Yes to peace, disarmament, justice, and the climate."

Brett Wilkins ·


PG&E Charged With 11 Felony Counts—Including Manslaughter—Over 2020 Zogg Fire

"PG&E has a history with a repeated pattern of causing wildfires that is not getting better," said Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett. "It's only getting worse."

Brett Wilkins ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo