December, 03 2025, 01:16pm EDT
EPA Employees Challenge Firings for Signing Dissent Letter
Truth Is Not a Fireable Offense for Federal Employees
Today, six former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees filed First Amendment legal challenges to their recent firings for signing a letter of dissent. The six employees were among approximately 160 EPA employees who publicly signed a June 30th open letter to Administrator Lee Zeldin and members of Congress protesting the politization of science at EPA and warning that EPA’s actions under this administration were endangering public health and the environment.
The EPA employees filed their claims before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal agency that resolves appeals from terminated federal government employees. Counsel for the fired employees includes Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), James & Hoffman, P.C., Minahan Muther Klinger, P.C., and Brown Gaines, LLC.
The former employees argue, among other things, their removals were illegal because –
- They were fired for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech;
- Their firings were illegal retaliation for perceived political affiliation;
- Their firings were an arbitrarily harsh and inconsistent punishment for their actions in relationship to other signatories of the letter; and,
- They were fired without cause.
EPA only fired a small number of employees, most of whom had long careers of distinguished government service. Many other workers who publicly signed the letter were suspended without pay for two weeks.
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” says Joanna Citron Day, General Counsel for PEER. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing U.S. citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”
“Federal law protects these civil servants from arbitrary terminations,” said Daniel Rosenthal, a partner at James & Hoffman, a law firm that represents labor unions and employees. “The agency has the burden to prove that the employees engaged in misconduct and that this misconduct was severe enough to interfere with the employee’s work or another legitimate government objective. We look forward to refuting the EPA’s justification for terminating these dedicated employees.”
“If America is to remain on the course of democracy and honor the principles of its Constitution, we must allow its judicial system to restore employment for those unjustly fired and our collective faith in our country,” said Eden Brown Gaines, partner at Brown Gaines, LLC, a law firm that specializes in labor and employment matters.
“Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to attack federal employees without justification,” said Joshua Klinger, a partner at Minahan Muther Klinger, PC, a law firm representing federal employees and labor unions. “The overreach by the EPA regarding terminating a small group of employees who signed a dissent letter is in direct violation of the protections established under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.”
###
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
LATEST NEWS
Journal Finally Retracts Roundup Cancer Study Reliant on Monsanto Research and Ghostwriting
"Now that much of the research finding glyphosate poses no cancer risk has been undermined, it is especially outrageous that the Trump administration is seeking to bolster Bayer's case," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
Just two days after President Donald Trump's administration sided with the maker of glyphosate-based Roundup over cancer victims in a US Supreme Court case, the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a landmark 25-year-old study on the pesticide's supposed safety, citing various ethical concerns involving Monsanto.
Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, maintains that the weedkiller can be used safely and is not carcinogenic. However, the company faces thousands of lawsuits from people who developed cancer after exposure to its glyphosate products. The retraction stems from the US litigation, which in 2017 revealed Monsanto correspondence about the study.
While Bayer told the New Lede's Carey Gillam that Monsanto's role in the 2000 study was adequately disclosed, the journal's editor-in-chief, Martin van den Berg, does not agree. He wrote in an explanation for the retraction that "the apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as cowriters to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section."
"This article has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup," he highlighted. "However, the lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn."
Of the study's three named authors—Gary M. Williams, Ian Munro, and Robert Kroes—only Williams is still alive. Van den Berg wrote that he reached out seeking an "explanation for the various concerns," but "did not receive any response."
The paper is reliant on company research. As van den Berg detailed, "the article's conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto," and "the authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999."
"Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication," he noted.
"The paper had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," he continued. "Given its status as a cornerstone in the assessment of glyphosate's safety, it is imperative that the integrity of this review article and its conclusions are not compromised. The concerns specified here necessitate this retraction to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal."
It took years, but finally that Roundup paper ghost-written by Monsanto has been retracted. The whole episode is indicative of a terrible rot that is active in corners of scientific publishing.www.lemonde.fr/en/environme...
[image or embed]
— Joe Rojas-Burke (@rojasburke.bsky.social) December 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports, emphasized the years between the retraction and the release of documents exposing Monsanto's role in the study. "What took them so long to retract it?" he asked Stacy Malkan of US Right to Know. "The retraction should have happened right after the documents came out."
Van den Berg, who has been in his role since 2019, told Malkan and Le Monde's Stéphane Foucart that he began reviewing the paper after a September article from Alexander Kaurov of New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington and Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University.
Kaurov and Oreskes' article in the journal Environmental Science and Policy begins by stressing that "corporate ghostwriting is a form of scientific fraud" and goes on to examine the paper's impact—or as they put it, "how corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse."
The Netherlands-based van den Berg said that "it simply never ended [up] on my desk being at first primarily a US situation with litigation. The paper of Oreskes triggered it this summer and these authors made an official request and complaint."
He also told Malkan that "if you have more papers regarding Roundup published in RTP with possible problems, let me know."
Although Bayer on Wednesday pointed to the thousands of other studies on glyphosate and "the consensus among regulatory bodies worldwide," the retraction could impact both regulations and ongoing litigation. As Gillam reported:
Brent Wisner, one of the lead lawyers in the Roundup litigation and a key player in getting the internal documents revealed to the public, said the retraction was "a long time coming."
Wisner said the Williams, Kroes, and Munro study was the "quintessential example of how companies like Monsanto could fundamentally undermine the peer-review process through ghostwriting, cherry-picking unpublished studies, and biased interpretations."
"Faced with undisputed evidence concerning how this study was manufactured and then used, for over two decades, to protect glyphosate sales, the editor-in-chief... did the right thing," Wisner said. "While the damage done to the scientific discourse—and the people who were harmed by glyphosate—cannot be undone, it helps rejuvenate some confidence in the otherwise broken peer-review process that corporations have taken advantage of for decades. This garbage ghostwritten study finally got the fate it deserved. Hopefully, journals will now be more vigilant in protecting the impartiality of science on which so many people depend."
Le Monde's Foucart noted Wednesday that the retracted study "is cited around 40 times in the 2015 European expert report that led to the herbicide's reauthorization in 2017."
In the United States, Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity—who has been highly critical of the Trump administration's various decisions favoring the pesticide industry that contradict its so-called Make America Healthy Again promises—urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action in response to the retraction.
"The pesticide industry's decades of efforts to hijack the science and manipulate it to boost its profits is finally being exposed," He said in a statement. "The EPA must take immediate action to reassess its finding that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. That means rather than relying on Monsanto's confidential research of its own product, the agency needs to follow the gold standard of independent science established by the World Health Organization in its finding that glyphosate probably causes cancer."
He also pointed to the Monday briefing in which US Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the country's top court to hear a challenge to a verdict that awarded $1.25 million to a man who claimed Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"Now that much of the research finding glyphosate poses no cancer risk has been undermined, it is especially outrageous that the Trump administration is seeking to bolster Bayer's case," Donley said. "Trump promised the American public his administration would protect Americans from dangerous chemicals and pesticides, but now it's throwing its full weight behind Bayer's desire to deny cancer victims their day in court. This is a massive betrayal of the public and an unabashed prioritization of corporate wealth over public health, plain and simple."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Regulators Ripped for 'Rushed' Approval of Bill Gates' Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
Dec 03, 2025
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How Recycling Is Largely a 'Toxic Lie' Pushed by Plastics Industry
"These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
A report published Wednesday by Greenpeace exposes the plastics industry as "merchants of myth" still peddling the false promise of recycling as a solution to the global pollution crisis, even as the vast bulk of commonly produced plastics remain unrecyclable.
"After decades of meager investments accompanied by misleading claims and a very well-funded industry public relations campaign aimed at persuading people that recycling can make plastic use sustainable, plastic recycling remains a failed enterprise that is economically and technically unviable and environmentally unjustifiable," the report begins.
"The latest US government data indicates that just 5% of US plastic waste is recycled annually, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014," the publication continues. "Meanwhile, the amount of single-use plastics produced every year continues to grow, driving the generation of ever greater amounts of plastic waste and pollution."
Among the report's findings:
- Only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics—found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps—are actually recyclable;
- Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging; and
- The US plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash.
"Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House," Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. "These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic."
"Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price," he added.
Greenpeace is among the many climate and environmental groups supporting a global plastics treaty, an accord that remains elusive after six rounds of talks due to opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that produce the petroleum products from which almost all plastics are made.
Honed from decades of funding and promoting dubious research aimed at casting doubts about the climate crisis caused by its products, the petrochemical industry has sent a small army of lobbyists to influence global treaty negotiations.
In addition to environmental and climate harms, plastics—whose chemicals often leach into the food and water people eat and drink—are linked to a wide range of health risks, including infertility, developmental issues, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.
Plastics also break down into tiny particles found almost everywhere on Earth—including in human bodies—called microplastics, which cause ailments such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, and possibly cardiovascular disease and gut biome imbalance.
A study published earlier this year in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses worldwide annually—impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and at-risk populations.
As Jo Banner, executive director of the Descendants Project—a Louisiana advocacy group dedicated to fighting environmental racism in frontline communities—said in response to the new Greenpeace report, "It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money."
"They call it development—but it’s exploitation, plain and simple," Banner added. "There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Writing for Time this week, Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and current president of the environmental justice group Beyond Plastics, said that "throwing your plastic bottles in the recycling bin may make you feel good about yourself, or ease your guilt about your climate impact. But recycling plastic will not address the plastic pollution crisis—and it is time we stop pretending as such."
"So what can we do?" Enck continued. "First, companies need to stop producing so much plastic and shift to reusable and refillable systems. If reducing packaging or using reusable packaging is not possible, companies should at least shift to paper, cardboard, glass, or metal."
"Companies are not going to do this on their own, which is why policymakers—the officials we elected to protect us—need to require them to do so," she added.
Although lawmakers in the 119th US Congress have introduced a handful of bills aimed at tackling plastic pollution, such proposals are all but sure to fail given Republican control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the Trump administration's pro-petroleum policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular