N※N

Public Health Experts Sound the Alarm as Trump EPA Eliminates Research Arm

Public Health Experts Raise Urgent Concerns Over Trump EPA's Elimination of Key Research Arm

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the scientific and environmental communities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration has announced the elimination of a critical research division, prompting widespread alarm from public health experts. This decision, detailed in recent agency restructuring plans, targets the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), specifically dismantling its extramural research programs, including the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program. Critics argue that this action undermines the agency's ability to conduct independent, peer-reviewed science essential for protecting public health and the environment. As the nation grapples with escalating climate crises, pollution challenges, and emerging health threats, the loss of this research arm is seen not just as a budgetary cut but as a deliberate assault on evidence-based policymaking.

The ORD has long served as the backbone of the EPA's scientific endeavors, funding innovative research that informs regulations on air and water quality, chemical safety, and ecosystem protection. Established in the 1970s following the creation of the EPA itself, the ORD oversees a vast array of studies, from assessing the impacts of pesticides on children's health to evaluating the long-term effects of industrial pollutants on vulnerable communities. The STAR program, in particular, has been a cornerstone, awarding competitive grants to universities and independent researchers to explore pressing environmental issues. Over the years, this initiative has produced groundbreaking findings, such as links between air pollution and respiratory diseases, the dangers of lead exposure in drinking water, and strategies for mitigating climate change effects on coastal regions. By fostering collaboration between federal scientists and external experts, the ORD has ensured that EPA policies are grounded in robust, unbiased data rather than political expediency.

The decision to eliminate this research arm stems from the Trump administration's broader agenda to slash federal spending and deregulate industries. Announced amid proposed budget cuts for fiscal year 2019, the restructuring would redirect funds away from independent research toward what the EPA describes as "core mission" activities, such as compliance and enforcement. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a vocal skeptic of climate science and former Oklahoma attorney general known for suing the agency multiple times, has framed these changes as efforts to eliminate redundancy and focus on practical outcomes. However, internal documents and leaked memos suggest a more ideological motivation: reducing the influence of scientific research that often supports stricter environmental regulations, which industry groups like fossil fuel companies have long opposed.

Public health experts have been quick to sound the alarm, warning that the elimination of the ORD's research capabilities could have dire consequences for American well-being. Dr. Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA Administrator under President Obama, described the move as "a direct attack on science itself," emphasizing that without independent research, the agency risks becoming a rubber stamp for polluters. In a statement to Truthout, McCarthy highlighted how STAR-funded studies have been instrumental in landmark regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. "This isn't just about cutting costs," she said. "It's about silencing the evidence that demands action on climate change and toxic exposures."

Echoing these sentiments, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit advocacy group, released a report detailing the potential fallout. UCS senior analyst Gretchen Goldman noted that the ORD's extramural programs have supported over 4,000 research projects since 1995, leading to advancements in understanding endocrine-disrupting chemicals, wildfire smoke impacts, and urban heat islands. "By gutting this arm, the EPA is essentially blinding itself to emerging threats," Goldman explained. "We're already seeing the effects of weakened science in policies like the rollback of vehicle emissions standards, which could lead to thousands of premature deaths from increased air pollution." The UCS report estimates that without these research initiatives, the U.S. could fall behind in global environmental leadership, exacerbating issues like antibiotic resistance from agricultural runoff and the spread of vector-borne diseases amid warming temperatures.

The implications extend far beyond academia. Environmental justice advocates point out that marginalized communities—often low-income and communities of color—bear the brunt of pollution and will suffer most from diminished research. For instance, studies funded by the ORD have exposed disparities in exposure to hazardous waste sites, informing cleanup efforts in places like Flint, Michigan, where lead-contaminated water highlighted systemic failures. Without ongoing research, experts fear a regression in addressing such inequities. "This is a public health crisis in the making," said Mustafa Santiago Ali, a former EPA official focused on environmental justice. "Communities that have fought for decades to have their voices heard through science are now being sidelined."

Historically, the Trump administration's approach to the EPA has been marked by controversy. Since taking office, President Trump has appointed industry insiders to key positions, rolled back over 100 environmental rules, and proposed deep cuts to the agency's budget—slashing it by nearly 30% in initial proposals. The elimination of the research arm fits into this pattern, aligning with efforts to restrict the use of scientific studies in rulemaking, such as the controversial "secret science" rule, which limits the EPA's reliance on research where raw data isn't publicly available. This rule, critics argue, disproportionately affects epidemiological studies that protect privacy while revealing public health risks.

Experts also warn of long-term damage to the scientific workforce. The ORD employs hundreds of researchers and collaborates with thousands more through grants. Dismantling these programs could lead to brain drain, as talented scientists seek opportunities elsewhere, potentially in the private sector or abroad. "We're risking the loss of institutional knowledge that's taken decades to build," said Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "In an era of complex challenges like microplastics in oceans and PFAS chemicals in drinking water, we need more research, not less."

Opposition to the move has been fierce, with congressional Democrats and environmental groups mobilizing to block it. Senators like Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island have introduced legislation to restore funding, while organizations such as the Sierra Club are launching public campaigns to raise awareness. "The American people deserve an EPA that prioritizes science over special interests," Whitehouse stated in a recent hearing. Petitions and lawsuits are already in the works, drawing on precedents like the successful challenges to Trump's attempts to repeal the Clean Power Plan.

As the restructuring proceeds, the broader question looms: What does this mean for the future of environmental protection in the U.S.? Without a strong research foundation, the EPA's ability to respond to crises—be it oil spills, chemical accidents, or pandemics exacerbated by environmental factors—will be severely hampered. The COVID-19 pandemic has already underscored the interplay between environmental health and infectious diseases, with air pollution linked to higher mortality rates. Eliminating the research arm could leave the nation vulnerable at a time when resilience is paramount.

In conclusion, the Trump EPA's decision to dismantle its key research division represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between science and politics. Public health experts are not just sounding the alarm; they are calling for immediate action to preserve the integrity of environmental science. As debates rage in Washington, the stakes could not be higher: the health of millions, the sustainability of ecosystems, and the credibility of federal institutions hang in the balance. Restoring this vital arm will require concerted efforts from lawmakers, scientists, and citizens alike, ensuring that evidence, not ideology, guides our path forward. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Truthout Article at:
[ https://truthout.org/articles/public-health-experts-sound-the-alarm-as-trump-epa-eliminates-research-arm/ ]