The Trump administration is tightening its grip on the EPA’s science operations as it prepares to relocate employees from once-respected research departments.
According to an internal memo obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News, the agency’s new, smaller Office of Science has laid out policies for how the agency will approve new research and make research findings available to the public. Additionally, the remaining EPA scientists in the now-disbanded Office of Research and Development were reassigned earlier this week, including some who will have to transfer if they want to continue working at the agency.
Chris Frey, who led the EPA’s Office of Research in the Biden administration, said the agency’s constant whirlwind of change is suffocating the agency’s scientists. “This deck is against scientists who want to do honest science,” Frey said.
“We’ve seen clearly that the Trump administration has no desire to regulate pollutants,” said Darya Minovi, manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Minovi added: “But what scares me most about these policies is that they represent a systemic shift that moves beyond willingness and toward ability.”
Eight EPA employees spoke to E&E News on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation about ongoing changes in the agency’s science operations, including the reassignment of the last ORD employee. They expressed dissatisfaction with the agency’s response to the transfer, which they viewed as another traumatizing step for EPA employees.
“This definitely feels punitive, especially since we were told no one needed to move,” said one agency employee. “Unfortunately, I don’t know if my expertise is relevant. …The lack of information and clarity seems like a deliberate choice on their part.”
Earlier this week, EPA employees received an email from the anonymous address Notice5 informing them of a reassignment to another location within the EPA as part of a “strategic realignment effort.”
“The core of this restructuring is to integrate scientific and related administrative expertise directly into EPA’s office,” the email, seen by E&E News, said. “The effective date of your reassignment will be communicated at a later date.”
Embarrassed by the emails, staff members consulted their direct supervisors, only to find that they had virtually no involvement in deciding who would be redeployed or why. Some were demoted or placed in non-skilled positions, while others were reassigned.
“There are concerns that some people are being intentionally given geographic reassignment as an excuse to be forced out of the agency,” said another EPA official. “I feel like there’s some unidentified evil force at work here.”
On Thursday afternoon, the reassigned research staff were scheduled to meet with human resources personnel to learn more about the reassignment.
A third EPA official grieving the loss of the lab said, “Literally shutting down ORD and giving us only an awful 45 minutes of work time is total insanity.”
In response to questions for this article, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Horan said the agency’s reorganization over the past year will help the agency achieve its mission to “Power America’s Great Comeback,” manage taxpayer dollars responsibly, and make decisions “based on gold-standard science.”
“As part of this science-centered transformation, EPA has issued reassignment notices to the remaining employees in the Office of Research and Development,” Horan said.
“No one knows what we should do.”
EPA’s remaining laboratory staff were scheduled to be reassigned last month as the agency formally ended the program. Many had already moved into atmospheric, chemical, and water-related programs or into the new division, the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions.
The Trump administration officially opened OASES in October, an office that is “solution-oriented” and focused on “regulatory needs,” according to its website. It is expected to have about 500 employees, one-third of the research program staff at the end of the Biden administration.
OASES staff say so far they have received little direction on research priorities.
A fourth EPA official said, “No one knows what they should do. Management is all too afraid of making a mistake to commit to any decisions.” “The staff left at OASES do not have the resources or support to actually conduct meaningful research. We have not yet decided whether to allow the research to be published.”
Dozens of agency employees are affected by the move. A total of 124 reassignment notices were sent out, according to figures provided by the EPA’s media office.
Furthermore, 35 of these were geographic relocations. The EPA has directed these employees to relocate to continue working.
Union officials told E&E News they estimate that some of the relocated employees currently work at the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Others are based at the agency’s Washington headquarters. At least two employees at EPA’s Cincinnati office were also notified of reassignment from their current locations.
A fifth EPA employee noticed a trend regarding people being reassigned outside of their current location. Affected employees have either signed a public letter of opposition criticizing the Trump administration, are eligible for retirement, have disability accommodations in their workplaces, or opted out of the “deferred retirement” program after initially opting in.
“I feel they are still trying to reduce their numbers. I don’t think they are going to pay for the relocation,” said the employee, opining that “the agency just wants to pressure them into leaving by threatening to reassign them.”
Justin Chen, president of American Federation of Public Employees Council 238, the EPA’s largest labor union, said in a statement that the reassignment was “malicious” and called for no one to be forced to reassign.
“Forcing these employees to uproot their livelihoods or risk losing their jobs is not about business necessity,” Chen said. “This is a clear attempt to dismantle important scientific capacity while turning away experienced civil servants.”
According to the agency’s press office, the agency does not comment on individual personnel actions.
Scientific priorities approved by political leadership
Details of how EPA’s new science office will operate are currently being explained to staff.
Maureen Gwynn, acting assistant administrator and scientific advisor who leads OASES, shared a pair of memos with employees in a March 25 email.
“Thank you for your patience as we all work to implement these new interim policies and processes,” Gwinn said.
One memo described the approval process for OASES’s “scientific activities and products.”
“This work is consistent with agency and administration priorities, as articulated through EPA and White House strategic plans, initiatives, and directives,” a reproduction of the memo says. He added that efforts to address the science needs of state and federal agencies, including the EPA, “must be supported by appropriate political leadership.”
This approach “ensures that there are no ‘surprises’ regarding OASES’s scientific and research activities,” the memo continued.
While there were political official positions at the helm of the old research office, the new OASES approval process made “political approval…the biggest factor in making the project happen,” Frey said.
“In this context, OASES scientists are not allowed to publish science that is unacceptable to political leaders,” Frey said.
“I think what’s more insidious, especially when you look at this in the context of OASES within administrative offices, is the emphasis on the approval of political leaders,” Minovi said.
Jennifer Ome Zabaleta, who worked at the EPA for 40 years, said the new guidance appears to replace the multiyear Strategic Research Action Plan with a “more ad hoc” approach and “invites even more micromanagement of certain work that can slow things down.”
“This does not promote coordination and collaboration and can lead to operational inefficiencies and impacts,” said Olme Zabaleta, who retired as the agency’s chief of staff for science in 2021.
EPA’s Horan said the memorandum will implement the new office and ensure that “gold standard science” is used in rulemaking and technical assistance to states.
“Creating a clear and concise process will allow EPA to work more closely with the National Planning Agency to transparently communicate the science of EPA’s efforts to deliver clean air, land, and water to all Americans,” an EPA spokesperson said.
Another note in the text reproduction detailed OASES’s clearance policy and routing guidelines. It included a step-by-step guide to “advance notification” that alerts top officials to potentially highly impactful science, such as products that touch on EPA administrator priorities or that may present “significant risks to human health or the environment.”
Olme Zabaleta said the new licensing policy “doesn’t seem that different from what was in place under ORD.”
“The seemingly sophisticated notification process is not necessarily completely unexpected,” Minovi said. “But when you understand that all of these policies are concerning in the context of this agency, it becomes a concern again.”
Many of the remaining laboratory staff are now faced with difficult choices: to transfer or to stay at the institute.
As for why the EPA is trying to force them out, the first EPA staff offered to this administration seemed to hate science and criticism, pointing to a dissent. “I think they keep a list of those names even though we’re told we didn’t do anything wrong,” the employee said.
Annie Snyder and Miranda Wilson contributed to this report.
KevinBogardus.89 and eborst.64 Contact Kevin Bogardus and Ellie Borst on the encrypted messaging app Signal.
Description: This article has been updated to provide new details provided by EPA since publication regarding the number of employees who have been sent redeployment notices and notices of change of work location.
