The CDC is under fire after abruptly removing crucial health data from its website, with top advisers demanding answers on why the information disappeared and when it will return.
The CDC removed data on gender, vaccines, climate change, HIV and long COVID, citing compliance with Trump administration executive orders, sparking outrage among public health experts.
A CDC advisory board sent a letter demanding explanations from acting director Susan Monarez, warning of "dire consequences" if the data isn’t restored.
Some pages, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, have been reinstated, but concerns persist about transparency and the politicization of public health information.
Key quote:
“It’s more than a data set, it’s years and years of collecting data, analyzing data and putting it into a format that communities can use, literally, to extend their lives.”
— Daniel Dawes, health policy expert
Why this matters:
This isn’t just about missing web pages; it’s about trust. Public health relies on transparency. Without access to reliable data, doctors can’t make informed decisions, scientists can’t track trends and advocates are left fighting in the dark.
The Trump administration has begun deleting climate science information from federal websites, raising concerns among scientists and watchdog groups about restricted access to critical data.
The White House, NASA and the State Department have removed or altered climate-related content from their websites, making it harder to access scientific reports.
A federal research scientist lost funding for a project on air pollution after the State Department issued stop-work orders.
Watchdog groups fear further suppression of scientific data and interference with research under Trump's policies.
Key quote:
“When you sideline science, it can cost lives and I think we are seeing that with the gag order on health agencies.”
— Darya Minovi, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists Center for Science and Democracy
Why this matters:
When climate science is removed or buried from public view, the consequences reach far beyond a single country’s borders. Transparency is undermined, making it harder for researchers to verify data or build on previous findings. The loss of easily accessible climate information can also weaken international collaboration, as scientists across the globe rely on U.S. government agencies like NASA, NOAA and the EPA to share critical data on rising temperatures, extreme weather and carbon emissions.
More than 1,100 Environmental Protection Agency employees were blindsided with emails warning of immediate termination, fueling fear and frustration within the agency.
Over 1,100 EPA employees received abrupt termination warnings due to their probationary status, including seasoned staff recently moved to new roles.
The emails, tied to the implementation of Trump administration executive orders, have left workers demoralized, with many afraid to even open their emails.
A freeze on government funds further complicates operations, leaving grantees unable to maintain critical environmental projects.
Key quote:
"Hundreds of EPA grantees are completely locked out of the grant system. They are unable to process payroll, they are unable to pay invoices, they're unable to do the critical work that they were granted to do."
— Michelle Roos, president of the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network
Why this matters:
The timing couldn’t be worse — a funding freeze has already stalled critical projects, leaving communities without the environmental oversight they depend on. Many legal experts say the Trump administration's actions are unconstitutional, because the funding has already been appropriated by Congress.
Despite Donald Trump's efforts to expand offshore drilling, oil companies are sitting on thousands of unused leases in the Gulf of Mexico due to high costs and an oversupply of crude.
Of the 2,206 active offshore leases in the Gulf, only 448 are producing oil, with companies reluctant to drill due to low prices and high costs.
Trump's regulatory rollbacks and expanded leasing won't significantly increase production, as the U.S. already produces record amounts of crude.
Industry experts say many leases are held for speculation, investment or competitive advantage rather than immediate drilling.
Key quote:
“It’s not the regulations that are getting in the way, it’s the economics.”
— Hugh Daigle, professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Texas at Austin
Why this matters:
Trump’s aggressive push for deregulation was widely championed by the oil and gas industry as a way to ease financial burdens and increase domestic energy output. But experts say those rollbacks, while potentially lucrative for fossil fuel companies, are unlikely to meaningfully boost production or lower consumer energy costs. The balance between energy independence, corporate profits and environmental stewardship continues to shape policy debates as the country navigates a future of volatile oil markets and growing climate concerns.
The U.S. offshore wind industry, which spans 40 states and supports thousands of jobs, faces potential setbacks after a new executive order halted lease approvals and federal permits for wind projects.
A report from Oceantic Network highlights how offshore wind development has created jobs, boosted ports and driven investment in shipbuilding and manufacturing across the U.S.
President Donald Trump signed an order pausing new offshore wind leases and permits, prompting concerns from industry leaders about job losses and economic disruption.
Some companies, like Nexans in South Carolina, are pivoting to the European market due to uncertainty in the U.S. wind sector.
Key quote:
“While under a National Energy Emergency created by an unprecedented rise in energy demand, we should be working to quickly bring generation online instead of curtailing a power source capable of providing base load generation and creating new jobs across 40 states.”
— Liz Burdock, founder and CEO of Oceantic Network
Why this matters:
Offshore wind has been a key driver of job creation and infrastructure investment, but regulatory uncertainty threatens its momentum. Halting new leases could slow renewable energy expansion, impacting supply chains, ports and economic growth in dozens of states.
Duke Energy and other utilities have asked the Trump administration to roll back Biden-era regulations on coal ash disposal and greenhouse gas emissions, arguing they are costly and unworkable.
The Biden administration’s rules require coal plants to cut emissions or close by 2032 and mandate that new natural gas plants reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90%. Utilities say the rules force them to adopt expensive, untested carbon capture technology.
The second regulation expands coal ash disposal rules to more power plants, aiming to curb contamination from toxic chemicals like arsenic. Utilities claim this exceeds regulatory authority and increases costs.
Environmental advocates argue these rules are needed to protect public health and the environment.
Key quote:
“The public record reveals that nearly all coal plants have contaminated groundwater with dangerous toxic chemicals above federal standards. Any new regulation proposed by the Trump administration will have to address this alarming situation.”
— Lisa Evans, senior counsel at Earthjustice
Why this matters:
Scientists warn that continued reliance on fossil fuels, particularly coal, is incompatible with efforts to curb global warming. Despite these risks, some utilities continue to resist stricter environmental regulations. Industry groups argue that tougher rules on coal ash disposal and carbon emissions would be costly and could disrupt power supplies. But delays in adopting cleaner energy sources leave communities vulnerable — not only to the long-term consequences of climate change but also to immediate health risks from toxic waste and polluted air.
Oatly is working to replace gas-fired boilers at its U.S. factories with electric heat pumps, highlighting the broader challenge food and beverage manufacturers face in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for industrial heat.
Oatly’s Millville, N.J., facility depends on natural gas for heating but is exploring electric alternatives, including industrial heat pumps.
Other food manufacturers, such as Kraft Heinz, are also testing lower-carbon heating solutions but face high costs and logistical hurdles.
Federal and state incentives are helping some companies transition, though widespread adoption remains slow due to cheap natural gas and outdated infrastructure.
Key quote:
“We really want to have strong competitiveness as a nation. We want to have good jobs that arise in lots of different locations, and we want to make sure that we have efficient use of all of our energy infrastructure. And the food and beverage sector specifically really hits all three of those spots.”
— Richard Hart, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Why this matters:
Industrial heat accounts for a significant portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the food industry could lead the shift to cleaner alternatives. Widespread electrification of heating in factories would cut emissions but requires major investments and policy support.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
www.statnews.com
