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
environmental protection network
Ex-EPA Staff Warn Trump Job Cuts 'Leave Communities Unprotected'
"This does not save taxpayers money; it simply shifts costs to hospitals, families and communities left to bear the health and economic consequences of increased pollution and weakened oversight."
Jul 18, 2025
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that it will reduce its workforce by more than 3,700 and abolish its stand-alone science branch, moves that one group of former EPA officials warned will "gut" research and enforcement and "leave communities unprotected."
The EPA said the personnel cuts—which will be achieved via layoffs, voluntary early retirements, and other measures—will deliver $748.8 millions in savings.
"Under President [Donald] Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars."
However, the Environmental Protection Network—an advocacy group of over 650 former EPA career staff and political appointees—said the move "signals a systematic dismantling of the agency's ability to protect public health and the environment."
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA principal deputy assistant administrator for science, said that "today's cuts dismantle one of the world's most respected environmental health research organizations."
She continued:
EPA's science office has long been recognized internationally for advancing public health protections through rigorous science. Reducing its workforce under the guise of cost savings is both misleading and dangerous. This does not save taxpayers money; it simply shifts costs to hospitals, families, and communities left to bear the health and economic consequences of increased pollution and weakened oversight.
"The people of this country are not well served by these actions," Orme-Zavaleta added. "They are left more vulnerable."
Environmental Protection Network senior policy adviser Jeremy Symons said, "These layoffs are targeted to do maximum long-term damage to the Environmental Protection Agency because polluter lobbyists are calling the shots."
"This administration claims to champion transparency, but there is nothing transparent about how these cuts are being executed," Symons added. "This is not honest government. It's a deliberate strategy to shrink the agency's capacity while shielding that reality from public view because 9 out of 10 Americans oppose cuts to EPA."
Friday's EPA announcement follows other cuts at the agency amid the Trump administration's evisceration of the federal government, spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Zeldin has boasted of canceling billions of dollars worth of green grants and ordering the closure of every environmental justice office nationwide. Amid a worsening planetary emergency, Zeldin also bragged about "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion."
An appropriations bill currently before Congress proposes slashing EPA funding by 23%.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Guts Rules Against Toxic Forever Chemicals in Drinking Water
"Once again, the Trump administration has demonstrated that its priority is bending to corporate interests, not protecting the safety and well-being of everyday people," said one critic.
May 14, 2025
Bowing to industry pressure, the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to roll back limits on so-called "forever chemicals" in drinking water—a move that critics said belies President Donald Trump's dubious pledge to "ensure that America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet."
In a misleading announcement, the EPA said Wednesday that it will "keep maximum contaminant levels" (MCLs) for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—PFOA and PFOS—as part of an effort to "provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address these contaminants in drinking water."
However, the EPA plans to scrap MCLs for four other forever chemicals: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS.
"These four chemicals are the ones currently in use because industry developed them to replace PFOA and PFOS, so they are the chemicals most likely to increase contamination in the future," explained former senior EPA water official Betsy Southerland in a statement issued by the Environmental Protection Network on Wednesday.
"It is incredibly inefficient to regulate them years after the treatment has been installed only for PFOA and PFOS," Southerland added. "[EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin's announcement on PFAS drinking water standards ensures that America's children will be drinking PFAS for another decade while he slows drinking water and wastewater PFAS treatment for years."
The EPA just announced its decision on PFAS, toxic forever chemicals, that reverses course on most of a crucial public health rule from just last year. We need more action, not less, to protect Americans from PFAS.
[image or embed]
— NRDC (@nrdc.org) May 14, 2025 at 7:34 AM
The EPA also pushed back the deadline for compliance with a Biden administration rule finalized last year aimed at ensuring polluters pay forever chemical cleanup costs, from 2029 to 2031. Earlier this week, the EPA said it is delaying a key PFAS reporting rule by one year.
"This is a betrayal of public health at the highest level," Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook said in response to Wednesday's announcement. "You can't make America healthy while allowing toxic chemicals to flow freely from our taps. The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it's sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come."
"The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering, and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases," Cook added.
"Zeldin's announcement on PFAS drinking water standards ensures that America's children will be drinking PFAS for another decade."
Approximately half of the U.S. population is drinking PFAS-contaminated water, "including as many as 105 million whose water violates the new standards," according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which added that "the EPA has known for decades that PFAS endangers human health, including kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and harm to the nervous and reproductive systems."
Forever chemicals—so called because some of them take up to 1,000 years to break down in the environment—have myriad uses, from nonstick cookware to waterproof clothing to firefighting foam. Increasing use of forever chemicals has resulted in the detection of PFAS in the blood of nearly every person in the United States and around the world.
"The PFAS contamination crisis is much larger than just two chemicals, and there is increasing evidence that other PFAS chemicals that pollute water harm health," Cook said. "Eliminating all PFAS chemicals from drinking water is an urgent public health priority."
"If this administration is serious about making America healthier, it needs to prove it by stopping PFAS from contaminating our drinking water," he added.
NRDC senior strategic director of health Erik Olson said Wednesday that "with a stroke of the pen, the EPA is making a mockery of the Trump administration's promise to deliver clean water for Americans."
"With this action, the EPA is making clear that it's willing to ignore Americans who just want to turn on their kitchen taps and have clean, safe water," Olson asserted. "The EPA's plan to retain but delay standards for two legacy forever chemicals may offer modest consolation to some, but throwing out protections against four others will be devastating."
"The law is very clear that the EPA can't repeal or weaken the drinking water standard. This action is not only harmful, it's illegal," Olson stressed. The Safe Drinking Water Act contains an "anti-backsliding" provision prohibiting the EPA from repealing or weakening the standard.
"With a stroke of the pen, the EPA is making a mockery of the Trump administration's promise to deliver clean water for Americans."
Kelly Moser, senior attorney and leader of the Water Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center—which successfully sued the industrial chemicals giant Chemours to stop PFAS contamination in North Carolina—said Wednesday that "when this administration talks about deregulation, this is what they mean—allowing toxic chemicals in drinking water at the request of polluters."
"This action also undercuts Administrator Zeldin's acknowledgment of the severe health harms of PFAS; what people need are protections from pollution, not press releases feigning concern," Moser added.
Food & Water Watch water program director Mary Grant said Wednesday that "today's decision is a shameful and dangerous capitulation to industry pressure that will allow continued contamination of our drinking water with toxic PFAS."
"Once again, the Trump administration has demonstrated that its priority is bending to corporate interests, not protecting the safety and well-being of everyday people," Grant continued. "Nothing is safe from Trump's greed-driven agenda—not even our drinking water."
"This will cost lives," she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Important Step': EPA Finalizes Rule to Clean Up Forever Chemical Contamination
While praising the move, campaigners also said that the agency "must require polluters to pay to clean up the entire class of thousands of toxic PFAS chemicals, and it must ban nonessential uses."
Apr 19, 2024
Environmental and public health advocates on Friday welcomed the Biden administration's latest step to tackle "forever chemicals," a new Superfund rule that "will help ensure that polluters pay to clean up their contamination" across the country.
"It is time for polluters to pay to clean up the toxic soup they've dumped into the environment," declared Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We all learned in kindergarten that if we make a mess, we should clean it up. The Biden administration's Superfund rule is a big step in the right direction for holding polluters accountable for cleaning up decades of contamination."
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—called forever chemicals because they remain in the human body and environment for long periods—have been used in products including firefighting foam, food packaging, and furniture, and tied to various health issues such as cancers, developmental and immune damage, and heart and liver problems.
"This action, coupled with EPA's recent announcement of limits on PFAS in drinking water, are critical steps in protecting the public."
As part of the Biden administration's "PFAS Strategic Roadmap," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule designates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Superfund law—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
"President Joe Biden pledged to make PFAS a priority in 2020 as part of the Biden-Harris plan to secure environmental justice. Today the Biden EPA fulfilled this important promise," said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
David Andrews, EWG's deputy director of investigations and a senior scientist, has led studies that have found that PFAS are potentially harming over 330 species and more than 200 million Americans could have PFOA and PFOS in their tap water.
"For far too long, the unchecked use and disposal of toxic PFAS have wreaked havoc on our planet, contaminating everything from our drinking water to our food supply," he noted. "Urgent action is needed to clean up contaminated sites, eliminate future release of these pollutants, and shield people from additional exposure."
Walter Mugdan, a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network and the former Superfund director for EPA Region 2, explained that the "landmark action will allow the agency to more strongly address PFAS contamination and expedite cleanups of these toxic forever chemicals while also ensuring that cleanup costs fall on those most responsible—the industrial polluters who continue to manufacture and use them."
"This action, coupled with EPA's recent announcement of limits on PFAS in drinking water, are critical steps in protecting the public from these harmful compounds," added the former official, referencing the first-ever national limits on forever chemicals in drinking water that the agency finalized earlier this month.
As an EWG blog post detailed in anticipation of the new rule earlier this week:
A hazardous substance designation allows the EPA to use money from its Superfund—the EPA's account for addressing this kind of contamination—to quickly jump-start cleanup at a PFOA- or PFOS-polluted site and to recover the costs from the polluters. If a company that contributed to the PFAS contamination problem refuses to cooperate, the EPA can order a cleanup anyway and fine the company if they fail to take action.
[...]
When a chemical is added to the list of hazardous substances, the EPA sets a reportable quantity. Any time a substance is released above that quantity it must be reported. By imposing reportable quantities, the EPA will get immediate information about new PFAS releases and the chance to investigate immediately and, if necessary, take actions to reduce additional exposures. This information is also shared with state or tribal and local emergency authorities, so it can reach communities more quickly.
"For years, communities that have been exposed to these chemicals have been demanding that polluters be held accountable for the harm they have created and to pay for cleanup," Safer States national director Sarah Doll highlighted. "We applaud EPA for taking this step and encourage them to take the next step and list all PFAS under the Superfund law."
Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, the federal policy program of Toxic-Free Future, similarly celebrated the EPA rule, calling it "an important step forward that will go a long way toward holding PFAS polluters accountable and beginning to clean up contaminated sites across the country."
Like Doll, she also stressed that "until we declare the full class of PFAS hazardous and prevent further pollution by ending the use of all PFAS chemicals in common products like food packaging and firefighting gear, communities will continue to pay the price with our health and tax dollars."
Mary Grant, the Public Water for All campaign director at Food & Water Watch, agreed that further action is necessary.
"Chemical companies have attempted to hide what they have long known about the dangers of PFAS, creating a widespread public health crisis in the process," Grant emphasized. "These polluters must absolutely be held accountable to pay to clean up their toxic mess."
"Today's new rules are a necessary and important step to jump start the cleanup process for two types of PFAS," she said. "While we thank the EPA for finalizing these rules, much more is necessary: The EPA must require polluters to pay to clean up the entire class of thousands of toxic PFAS chemicals, and it must ban nonessential uses of PFAS to stop the pollution in the first place."
Noting that it's not just the EPA considering forever chemicals policies, Grant called on Congress to "reject various legislative proposals to exempt for-profit companies, including the water and sewer privatization industry, from being held accountable to pay to clean up PFAS."
"It is an outrageous hypocrisy that large for-profit water corporations seek to privatize municipal water and sewer systems by touting themselves as a solution to PFAS contamination, and yet they want to carve themselves out of accountability for cleanup costs," she argued. "No corporation should have free rein to pollute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular