SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 25 2021, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety, gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
Stephanie Parent, Center for Biological Diversity, sparent@biologicaldiversity.org
EPA Watchdog Report: Senior Staffers in Trump EPA Changed, Omitted Science During 2018 Review of Dicamba; Skipped Internal Peer-Review Process
Assessment was edited to exclude evidence of pesticide’s troubling drift risks.
WASHINGTON
A scathing report released yesterday by a federal oversight agency revealed that high-ranking officials in the Trump Environmental Protection Agency purposely excluded scientific evidence of dicamba's drift risks before reapproving its use in 2018.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs failed to include the required internal peer reviews of scientific documents and that "senior-level" staffers "changed" and "omitted" research-based evidence of the drift risks of the pesticide that has already damaged millions of acres of crops.
"Now that the EPA's highly politicized, anti-science approach to fast-tracking use of this harmful pesticide has been fully exposed, the agency should cancel dicamba's recent approval, not try to defend it in court," said Stephanie Parent, a senior environmental health attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The EPA knows that anything less is likely to result in yet another summer of damaged fields and lost profits for farmers choosing not to use dicamba."
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity challenging the 2018 approval, a federal court ruled last June that the EPA had violated the law when it failed to consider and account for the "enormous and unprecedented damage" caused by dicamba drift.
Yet just days before the November presidential election, the Trump EPA rushed to reapprove dicamba products for five years, and farmers and conservation groups were forced to again sue to challenge the approval. This is the third time the agency has registered these products, each time with additional restrictions that have failed to stem devastating drift.
"This report admits what we knew already: dicamba's approval was politically tainted. EPA unlawfully promoted the profits of pesticide companies instead of following the law and sound science, putting chemical companies over protecting farmers and the environment," said George Kimbrell, legal director of Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case. "The disappointing part is that EPA nonsensically continues to stand by the plainly political dicamba decision rushed through just days before the 2020 election, just 5 months after the court's striking down of the 2018 approval."
In the watchdog report released today, investigators said the EPA's actions on the dicamba registrations left the decision "legally vulnerable," spurring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to vacate the 2018 registrations for understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely.
The report stated that while division-level management review of pesticide safety documents is part of the typical EPA procedure, senior leaders were "more involved in the 2018 dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions." As a result, senior-level managers made "changes to or omissions from scientific documents."
For instance, the documents excluded some conclusions by staff scientists about dicamba's drift risks, according to the report. The investigators also found that some staff felt "constrained or muted" about sharing their concerns.
Background
Over the past four years the dicamba products sprayed "over the top" of soybean and cotton crops genetically engineered to resist the pesticide have caused drift damage to 5 million acres of soybeans as well as orchards, gardens, trees and other plants on a scale unprecedented in the history of U.S. agriculture.
Recent findings also suggest dicamba endangers human health. Earlier this year scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that use of dicamba can increase the risk of developing numerous cancers.
In separate actions, thousands of farmers have sued Monsanto and BASF for dicamba drift damages, which settled last year for $400 million. In a separate lawsuit, a jury awarded Missouri peach farmer Bill Bader $265 million for dicamba damage to his peach orchard.
Internal company memos released in the course of the Bader lawsuit revealed that even as Monsanto and BASF publicly denied that their products posed a major drift threat, they were internally projecting thousands of dicamba drift complaints over the first five years of use.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Democrats Warn Against 'Massively Corrupt' Trump Golden Dome Plans
"We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks," the lawmakers wrote.
Jul 08, 2025
A quartet of Democratic lawmakers are warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's plans to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system could open the door to a corrupt boondoggle.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) made the case that the proposed missile defense system goes well beyond what is actually needed to defend the nation against foreign missile attacks.
"The Trump administration's plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China," the Democrats wrote. "We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks. We urge you to rein in this dangerous plan."
The Democrats then pointed to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the system could cost up to $542 billion to complete, which is more than three times the cost that the Trump administration projected to have the system "fully operational" within the next four years.
They also warned about conflicts of interest posed by SpaceX, which is owned by estranged Trump ally Elon Musk, being awarded contracts to handle the project.
"In addition, U.S. Department of Defense recently announced plans to significantly scale back the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which in the past conducted essential testing of missile defense systems to ensure their military effectiveness," the lawmakers added. "As a result, the administration could rush ahead to award multibillion-dollar Golden Dome contracts with little ability to assess whether the money is being well-spent."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system for the United States after being impressed by Israel's "Iron Dome" system, despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the U.S. and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks than the U.S.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Trump Plan for 'Zombie' Coal Plants Will Make Energy Dirtier and Costlier
"The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills," said one opponent.
Jul 08, 2025
Green groups warned Tuesday that the Trump administration's plan to invoke a bogus "energy emergency" in order to keep old, polluting coal-fired plants running will make electricity generation dirtier and more expensive while failing to produce enough power to keep up with surging demand.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy published a resource adequacy analysis that includes plans for boosting fossil-fueled electricity generation, including at coal-fired plants. The report cites President Donald Trump's executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and strengthening the reliability and security of the nation's electric grid, and highlights the DOE's plan to classify aging fossil fuel plants as critical to system reliability. The administration is also likely to continue invoking Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act in order to extend the lifespans of older fossil fuel plants.
Although the analysis acknowledges that "old tools won't solve new problems," its methodology supports keeping expensive and polluting coal plants in operation. Dirty coal plants that continue to operate despite economic inefficiencies are sometimes called "zombie" plants.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient."
Not only does the report fail to state that the burning of fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency, it does not even mention the word "climate" once in its 73 pages. This tracks with the Trump administration's long-standing proscription of the term "climate change."
"The methodology released today is another attempt to push the false narrative that our country's energy future depends upon decades-old coal and gas plants, rather than clean renewables," said Sierra Club senior attorney Greg Wannier. "The only energy crisis faced by the American public is the catastrophic increase in costs that the Trump administration is forcing on the country's ratepayers."
Wannier noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and states "are already well equipped to meet any projected resource needs through the existing regulatory process, which ensures that electricity demand is reliably met at the least public cost."
"Any effort by DOE to override this process to forcibly keep coal plants online past their planned retirements would be an extraordinary and unlawful overreach of its regulatory authority," Wannier added. "It would be particularly harmful and costly to the communities living near these power plants who face the possibility of continued exposure to toxic levels of air and water pollution."
Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said Tuesday:
The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills for American families and businesses. This time it has issued a methodology that uses dodgy accounting to ignore all the clean energy we have at our disposal—including solar, wind, and battery technologies that are helping meet our nation's energy needs and support the reliability of our electric grid—in order to make a bogus case that these old, dirty power plants are needed. The administration's deeply flawed approach can't hide the fact that clean energy resources are helping keep lights on and lower electricity bills across the country, while keeping old, dirty power plants on life support will mean higher power bills for families and more toxic, cancer-causing pollution in the air we breathe.
The Trump administration has already used the nonexistent energy emergency in a push to fast-track fossil fuel permitting, keep fossil-fueled plants operating, and to wage lawfare against Democrat-controlled states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for its role in causing the climate emergency. In 2017, the first Trump administration also moved to bail out financially floundering coal and nuclear plants.
"No matter how they try to gussy it up, bailing out coal or other fossil fuels when low-cost solar and wind power is growing so quickly makes even less sense today than it did in 2017 when the previous Trump administration tried it before," Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in response to the DOE plan.
"It's ironic that the Energy Department is warning about reliability just days after Republicans in Congress repealed the clean energy tax credits," Kennedy added, referring to a provision in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump on Friday.
NRDC cites analysts' predictions that the legislation will reduce additions of the electricity needed to meet rapidly growing demand and raise wholesale electricity prices as much as 25% by 2030 and up to 74% by 2035.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient—all while saving consumers money on their electricity bills," Kennedy said. "Bailing out old, dirty coal, gas, and oil plants would mean higher costs and a less reliable grid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ad Campaign Targets Vulnerable Republican Who Broke Promise Not to Cut Medicaid
Northeastern Pennsylvania Congressman Rob Bresnahan is one of many Republicans in swing states who are taking heat after ripping away Medicaid coverage from their constituents.
Jul 08, 2025
A new ad campaign is targeting a vulnerable first-term Republican congressman in a Northeastern Pennsylvania swing district after he broke his promise not to vote for Medicaid cuts.
Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr. (R-Pa.) joined the rest of his party last week to vote for the Republican budget megabill, which cut over $1 trillion from the safety net program over the next decade.
As editorial board of The Times-Tribune in Scranton wrote, Bresnahan's vote went against his "repeated promises" to protect safety net programs, including a pledge he made in February that "if a bill is put in front of me that guts the benefits my neighbors rely on, I will not vote for it."
Bresnahan did ultimately vote for the bill, which may now result in nearly a half-million of his "neighbors" in the state of Pennsylvania losing coverage, according to a study published last week by the Joint Congressional Economic Committee. More than 200,000 people in Bresnahan's district—over a quarter—are Medicaid recipients.
In a new ad released Monday by the progressive group Unrig Our Economy, one of those neighbors comes back to haunt him.
"I sat in a meeting with Congressman Bresnahan," says a Scranton woman named Krysten. "We discussed some issues that I deal with myself."
The ad notes that Krysten had an ankle injury that required "six surgeries," "rehabilitation," an "ankle brace," and "medication."
"I had explained how important Medicaid is with him sitting straight across from me," Krysten says. "He stated to me that he would not make cuts to Medicaid."
"Afterwards, when the votes were done," she continues, "when I found out how he voted, I was very upset to hear that Congressman Bresnahan voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in history to give tax breaks to billionaires. This doesn't make sense at all."
Bresnahan won his seat by just 1.6 points in 2024, knocking out Democratic incumbent Rep. Matt Cartwright. The Cook Political Report lists Bresnahan as one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the country in the 2026 midterms.
"Congressman Bresnahan looked his own constituents in the eyes and promised to protect Medicaid, then turned around and voted to gut it so billionaires could get another tax break," said Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for Unrig Our Economy. "People like Krysten deserve healthcare and honesty, not cruel cuts and empty promises. Congressman Bresnahan should start fighting for his constituents, not the ultrarich."
Other Democratic-aligned groups are joining in the full-court press, hoping Bresnahan's betrayal of Medicaid recipients would be enough to sink his reelection chances.
In a post on X Tuesday, the House Majority PAC, which seeks to win the House majority back for Democrats, called out Bresnahan for selling his stock in the Centene Corporation, the largest Medicaid provider in the U.S., on May 15, just one week before the first version of the Republican bill passed the House. The value of the stock would tank throughout the month of June as cuts to Medicaid became increasingly inevitable.
"This congressman literally dumped stock in a Medicaid provider company right before this bill came to the floor," said Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.). "Don't be fooled—these guys know exactly what they're doing."
Bresnahan is one of many Republicans who may be in danger after voting to strip Medicaid from their constituents.
According to Newsweek, 64 GOP lawmakers represent districts where the Medicaid enrollment rate is higher than the national average. In addition to Bresnahan, four others—Nick Begich (R-Alaska), Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), and Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) won their districts by five points or less and are particularly vulnerable.
The GOP bill is historically unpopular, with polls from Quinnipiac University, The Washington Post, Pew Research, and Fox News all showing roughly 2-to-1 opposition. Meanwhile, just 10% of Americans say they support cuts to Medicaid spending compared to nearly half who say the government should spend more money on the program, according to Quinnipiac.
According to reporting from Politico Sunday, Republicans are now in panic mode about how this vote could affect their chances.
"What we know from past elections is that messing with people's healthcare coverage is very problematic for politicians," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. "It has, in the past, yielded some very, very negative views about the people who supported it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular