Imagine a world where the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land you live on are no longer protected by rigorous scientific research. This could soon become a reality if the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moves forward with plans to eliminate its Office of Research and Development (ORD), a move that could result in the layoffs of over 1,000 scientists. These cuts threaten to undermine decades of progress in environmental protection, leaving public health and the environment vulnerable to pollution and corporate interests.
The proposed cuts, part of a broader effort to reduce the EPA’s budget by 65%, have sparked outrage among scientists, lawmakers, and environmental advocates. Critics argue that dismantling the ORD would strip the EPA of its ability to make evidence-based decisions, putting millions of Americans at risk. But what does this mean for the future of environmental protection, and why should the public care?
What is the Office of Research and Development?
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is the scientific backbone of the EPA. Established in 1970 alongside the agency itself, the ORD conducts critical research on air and water pollution, climate change, chemical safety, and public health. Its work provides the scientific foundation for EPA regulations, ensuring that policies are based on robust, independent research rather than political or corporate influence.
For example, the ORD has been instrumental in identifying the dangers of lead in drinking water, setting air quality standards to reduce asthma rates, and regulating toxic chemicals like PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals.” Without the ORD, the EPA would lack the scientific expertise needed to address emerging environmental threats, from microplastics in oceans to the health impacts of wildfire smoke.
Without the ORD, the EPA would lack the scientific expertise needed to address emerging environmental threats, from microplastics in oceans to the health impacts of wildfire smoke.
Newspaper, Magazine, Blog, and eCommerce Ready
The proposed cuts: A blow to science and public health
The Trump administration’s plan to dissolve the ORD and cut up to 75% of its workforce has sent shockwaves through the scientific community. According to internal documents reviewed by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the cuts would eliminate 1,155 positions, including chemists, biologists, toxicologists, and atmospheric scientists.
These scientists are responsible for ensuring that EPA regulations are grounded in data and independent research. For instance, the ORD’s research on air pollution has led to stricter emissions standards for vehicles and power plants, reducing respiratory illnesses and saving lives. Similarly, its work on water contamination has helped identify and regulate harmful chemicals in drinking water.
Critics warn that without the ORD, the EPA would be forced to rely on industry-funded studies, which often downplay the risks of pollution and toxic chemicals. This could lead to weaker regulations and increased exposure to harmful substances, particularly in vulnerable communities.
The human impact: Clean air, water, and land at risk
The consequences of these cuts would be felt far beyond the walls of the EPA. Millions of Americans rely on the agency’s regulations to protect them from environmental hazards. For example, the ORD’s research has been crucial in addressing the Flint water crisis, where lead contamination in drinking water exposed thousands of residents to serious health risks.
If the ORD is dismantled, the EPA’s ability to respond to such crises would be severely compromised. Air quality standards could weaken, leading to more asthma attacks and respiratory diseases. Water contamination might go undetected, putting communities at risk of exposure to harmful chemicals. And the regulation of toxic substances, from pesticides to industrial chemicals, could become less stringent, endangering public health.
Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut EPA science.
Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, a top Democrat on the House science committee
A brief history of the EPA: Science at its core
The EPA was established in 1970 in response to growing public concern about pollution and environmental degradation. Its creation marked a turning point in US environmental policy, bringing together various federal programs under one agency to address air and water pollution, hazardous waste, and other environmental issues.
From the beginning, science has been at the heart of the EPA’s mission. The agency’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, famously declared that the EPA would be “an independent advocate for the environment,” guided by scientific evidence rather than political or economic considerations. Over the decades, the EPA has played a key role in banning harmful substances like Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), regulating vehicle emissions, and cleaning up toxic waste sites.
The ORD has been central to these efforts, providing the scientific research needed to identify environmental risks and develop effective solutions. Its work has saved countless lives and protected ecosystems across the country.
The broader context: A pattern of environmental rollbacks
The proposed cuts to the ORD are part of a broader pattern of environmental rollbacks under the Trump administration. Since taking office, the administration has sought to weaken regulations on air and water pollution, open public lands to drilling and mining, and withdraw from international climate agreements like the Paris Accord.
These actions have been widely criticised by environmental advocates, who argue that they prioritise corporate profits over public health and the environment. The dismantling of the ORD would further erode the EPA’s ability to fulfil its mission, leaving the agency ill-equipped to address the environmental challenges of the 21st century.
Mary Grant, water program director at the environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch, warned of the consequences: “Even a cut half the size of Trump’s shocking assertion would have immediate and stark repercussions on the health and welfare of people from coast to coast.”
What’s next? The fight to protect EPA science
The proposed cuts to the ORD are not yet final, and there is still time for public pushback. Lawmakers, scientists, and environmental advocates are calling on Congress to block the cuts and protect the EPA’s scientific research.
In the meantime, the public can play a role by staying informed and making their voices heard. Contacting representatives, supporting environmental organisations, and spreading awareness about the importance of science-based policies are all ways to help protect the EPA’s mission.
A call to action for science and the environment
The proposed cuts to the EPA’s Office of Research and Development represent a direct threat to public health and the environment. By sidelining science, the Trump administration risks undermining decades of progress in environmental protection and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to pollution and toxic chemicals.
As the debate over the EPA’s future continues, one question remains: Will the US prioritise science and public health, or will it allow corporate interests to dictate environmental policy? The answer could have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.
References
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). About the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-research-and-development-ord
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Asthma. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/asthma
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/pfas
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Microplastics Research. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/water-research/microplastics-research
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Health Effects Attributed to Wildfire Smoke. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/wildfire-smoke-course/health-effects-attributed-wildfire-smoke
- Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Flint. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/flint
