epa
Op-ed: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.
The rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes.
In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.
We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.
I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).
We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).
Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.
As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journalabout the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well.
The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.
March for Science rally in Washington DC, April 22, 2017.
Credit: Susan Melkisethian/Flickr
To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.
Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.
In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.
Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.
In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.
There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.
What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?
As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days.
EPA shuts down deceptive recycling claims in plastics industry
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has cracked down on the plastics industry’s use of misleading accounting methods to inflate recycled content claims, marking a significant federal move to curb greenwashing in product labeling.
In short:
- The EPA's new policy prohibits the plastics industry from using the mass balance method to falsely advertise recycled content in products.
- Products labeled with the “Safer Choice” endorsement must now contain at least 15% post-consumer recycled content, calculated by weight.
- This decision is part of a broader effort by the Biden administration to tackle plastic pollution and promote truthful labeling.
Key quote:
“This is the turning point” that will allow us to start killing the “hoax” of mass balance.
— Jan Dell, founder of The Last Beach Cleanup
Why this matters:
The EPA’s move means that any products endorsed under its "Safer Choice" label must now meet stricter, more transparent standards. This is a win for consumers who care about making genuinely sustainable choices and a signal that the government won't tolerate such corporate sleight of hand. Read more: Recycling plastics “extremely problematic” due to toxic chemical additives.
EPA must increase transparency on chemical reviews, judge rules
A federal judge in D.C. has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to disclose more information about chemicals under review, siding with environmental groups who argued that the current lack of transparency compromises public safety.
In short:
- A Washington, D.C. judge ruled that the EPA must release non-confidential information about chemicals within five days of receiving an application under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
- Environmental groups successfully challenged EPA's practices, arguing they were too secretive, allowing companies to withhold critical information.
- The judge emphasized that the public has an enduring right to information, similar to rights under the Freedom of Information Act.
Key quote:
"The law mandates timely public access to robust information about new chemicals entering the marketplace to which we may be exposed."
— Samantha Liskow, lead counsel for Healthy Communities at EDF
Why this matters:
The EPA has often kept details about chemicals under wraps, citing concerns about trade secrets, but this ruling insists that the public has a right to know more about what's potentially lurking in everyday products. Read more: EPA announces stricter rules to prevent chemicals incidents.
Trump eyes former allies for possible EPA leadership role
Donald Trump may tap a former EPA chief or top advisor to lead the agency if he wins a second term, aiming to dismantle Biden-era regulations.
In short:
- Andrew Wheeler, Trump’s last EPA head, is a leading contender if Trump wins, with support from key former officials.
- Mandy Gunasekara, another former EPA official, has declined interest despite being a strong candidate.
- Trump may also consider other loyalists like Aurelia Skipwith Giacometto or Doug Benevento.
Key quote:
“They need to be able to set an agenda and go immediately.”
— Former Trump EPA official
Why this matters:
Trump’s EPA leader would face the challenge of rapidly rolling back environmental regulations and reshaping the agency. The appointment could significantly weaken U.S. environmental policy and hinder efforts to combat climate change.
Related EHN coverage:
EPA investigates biofuel fraud concerns
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is auditing renewable fuel producers for possible fraudulent use of unsustainable feedstocks in biodiesel production.
In short:
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun auditing renewable fuel producers over concerns that some companies may be fraudulently using unsustainable feedstocks like virgin palm oil, which are labeled as used cooking oil to earn government subsidies.
- These audits were initiated after the EPA updated supply chain accounting requirements in July 2023, aimed at ensuring the authenticity of materials used in producing biodiesel, a process eligible for various state and federal incentives.
- U.S. senators have urged federal agencies to rigorously verify both domestic and imported feedstocks to maintain integrity in biofuel production and avoid undermining efforts to promote sustainable energy.
Key quote:
“EPA has conducted audits of renewable fuel producers since July 2023 which includes, among other things, an evaluation of the locations that used cooking oil used in renewable fuel production was collected.”
— Jeffrey Landis, EPA spokesperson.
Why this matters:
The integrity of biofuel production is crucial for achieving environmental goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Fraudulent practices could undermine the transition to sustainable energy sources and harm environmental and economic policies designed to support renewable fuels.
Related EHN coverage:
House passes controversial spending bill cutting EPA funds
House Republicans passed a $38.5 billion spending bill that significantly reduces funding for clean energy and climate programs.
In short:
- The bill proposes a 20% cut to the EPA's budget, reducing funds for science and environmental justice programs.
- It includes conservative policy riders, expanding mining, increasing oil and gas leases and blocking climate initiatives.
- Many provisions are unlikely to survive bicameral negotiations after the November elections.
Key quote:
“Rather than making sound investments to protect our air and water, preserve our national parks and ensure the environment we all share and live in remains clean and protected, the majority’s bill benefits the most egregious polluters and climate science deniers.”
— Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee
Why this matters:
The bill's cuts to the EPA could hamper efforts to address climate change and environmental justice. Reductions in funding may affect public health, particularly in low-income and rural communities.
Trump could face fewer hurdles to overhaul the EPA in a second term
Donald Trump, if re-elected, would likely face fewer legal and bureaucratic barriers to significantly alter environmental and climate regulations, leveraging a more favorable judicial landscape and conservative support.
Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman report for The New York Times.
In short:
- Trump's previous attempts to roll back environmental regulations were often blocked by courts and internal resistance.
- Project 2025, led by conservative allies, outlines plans to weaken the EPA's authority on climate rules and environmental protections.
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority could facilitate Trump's regulatory changes, posing a challenge to existing environmental policies.
Key quote:
"It's going to be easier. They’re going to have better people, more committed people, more experienced people."
— Myron Ebell, former EPA transition leader
Why this matters:
A weakened EPA could result in reduced efforts to combat climate change, affecting global warming mitigation. Regulatory changes may increase environmental risks and undermine public health protections.