“Sorry, the person you emailed no longer works here.”
In my decades in the PR industry, I have never seen the kind of devastation that has occurred over the past year for reporters covering climate and environmental health.
In 2026 alone, the following media outlets cut their climate and health reporters:
NPR – Retrenchment of climate desk, climate editor and climate correspondent who had been with the network for 22 years
washington post – According to Energy Mix and Democracy Underground, 14 out of 19 climate reporters were fired. This included the only reporter who specialized in reporting on “environmental health.”
wall street journal – Cutting the only climate reporter and almost all the other health reporters. At least one quit, but was he forced to?
CBS News – Reduced only climate reporter.
environmental health news The reporting team was reduced. Currently, it is mainly a news curator site.
E&E NewsIt stands for Energy and Environmental News and was taken over by Politico. Politico will reportedly eliminate the E&E brand and cut multiple daily newsletters, according to a social media post by one of E&E’s editors. The environment is already receiving less attention in their reporting.
The impact of these losses on coverage is real. According to Yale University’s environmental news site E360, coverage of the world’s climate has declined every year for the past four years. This year’s El Niño pattern is expected to be more than twice as strong as previous years, as global warming accelerates and the ocean currents that control the weather break down.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is attacking climate, science, and the environment faster than Henry VIII changed his wife. It’s no secret that the fossil fuel industry provided millions of dollars to the Trump campaign for bids, and it paid off.
For example, President Trump’s EPA is literally giving polluters a free pass. Polluters can email the EPA to obtain air pollution “exemptions.” I’m not making this up. Due in part to corporate and political influence, EPA scientists are under pressure to downplay the health risks of toxic chemicals in their chemical risk assessments. Under the Trump administration, the EPA is rushing to approve AI data centers and rolling back the previous administration’s progress banning toxic chemicals like asbestos, PFAS, and formaldehyde.
If that’s not enough, the chemical industry spends millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress. What is their purpose? The US Chemical Safety Law and Toxic Substances Control Law will be watered down. This will expose millions more Americans to harmful chemicals, and the EPA will do little about it.
All of these policies are part of a corporate-led agenda that a majority of Americans oppose, according to recent polls.
- A poll conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Environmental Protection Network found that while an overwhelming majority of voters are alarmed by President Trump’s actions at the EPA, many admit that they hear little about what’s going on at the agency.
- 84% say President Trump should be tougher on corporate polluters
- 91% want EPA to ensure clean air and water
- 81% say they are concerned about EPA reducing protections against toxic chemicals and pollution
- 75% say limiting toxic chemicals should be a high or somewhat high priority at the EPA
- A study conducted by Hart Research on behalf of Earthjustice and other environmental organizations found:
- More than half of voters agree that harmful chemicals, pesticides and plastics are a very big or fairly big problem
- 61% give the government a poor rating on protecting people from toxic chemicals.
- 67% say the federal government is doing too little on the issue of toxic chemicals.
- Five out of six adults want the government to guarantee chemical safety, according to a Pew survey.
- According to EDF research, people support clean energy by a 2:1 ratio compared to gas.
In other words, when it comes to environmental issues, there is a huge disconnect between what the American people want and what the Trump administration is doing.
The good news is that dealers love it. guardian and Propablica They continue to provide important investigative reporting on environmental issues. and news outlets focused on issues such as: desmog, gristand new lady has emerged and is gaining an audience. But with fewer mainstream news outlets and reporters covering these important issues, fewer stories get covered and fewer people hear about them.
And if people are left in the dark, it means that polluter-driven policies can proceed despite the overwhelming majority of Americans opposing them.
Featured image by Getty Images for Unsplash.
-
Susan LaMontagne is president of Public Interest Media Group, Inc., where she works on behalf of environmental health and science organizations.
