Trump administration

January 28, 2025

Environmental and health programs thrown into chaos by Trump funding freeze

By Douglas Main

President Donald Trump’s surprise decision to freeze a massive portion of federal grants and loans — a move temporarily blocked by a federal court — has thrown environmental research, health programs, and community groups into chaos.

Trump’s directive instructs federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligations or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” The order affects around $3 trillion in funds.

The pause was to take effect Tuesday evening but a federal judge in the District of Columbia temporarily blocked the order in response to a lawsuit by the group Democracy Forward arguing the move violates the First Amendment and other federal law. The judge will render a more permanent decision on Feb. 3.

But the court order hasn’t immediately cleared up many uncertainties or apparently started funds flowing again. And some projects whose funds were already approved have been canceled.

One of many researchers impacted is Gabriel Filippelli, an environmental scientist and professor at Indiana University, who had been eagerly working on ramping up a project to study air pollution and climate change in Pakistan, funded by the State Department in late 2024, which involved training over a dozen students and researchers in the United States and abroad.

On January 27, Indiana University received a letter from the State Department stating that the project “no longer effectuates the agency’s priorities and is suspended… recipients must cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible.”

January 25, 2025

EPA proposal for pesticide tied to reproductive harm lands back with Trump

US environmental regulators are planning to change allowable levels of a weedkiller tied to reproductive health problems to a level critics say discounts years of documented health risks — and potentially marks a new battlefront within the Trump administration.

The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was put forth in late 2024 under the Biden administration, would allow concentrations of the herbicide atrazine up to 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes before any mitigation efforts were required.

That is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as proper in 2022. But it is lower than a level pushed for under the prior Trump administration. It is also lower than the longtime benchmark of 10 ppb that was in place from 2011-2019, and lower than atrazine maker Syngenta says is necessary.

The agency’s move has been met with outrage by environmental health advocates who say industry influence is overriding solid science, and years of fighting to reduce atrazine contamination of waterways is in jeopardy.

“It’s a punch in the gut for all the people who have worked to protect us from this incredibly harmful poison,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Atrazine is a widely used weed killing chemical that is popular with farmers, particularly those growing corn, and the chemical has been found to heavily contaminate drinking water supplies around the country, raising concerns for human health. The chemical has been banned for use as an herbicide in European Union since 2003.

January 23, 2025

Amid series of rapid-fire policy reversals, Trump quietly withdraws proposed limits on PFAS

By Shannon Kelleher

Amid a flurry of actions curtailing Biden’s environmental policies, the administration of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump this week withdrew a plan to set limits on toxic PFAS chemicals in industrial wastewater.

The draft rule, which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent to the White House for review in June, was seen as a precedent-setting move by reducing allowable discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals that have been linked to an array of health problems.

“It is abundantly clear that this action was taken to benefit the chemical industry – and every American will suffer for it,” said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “PFAS contamination is already a national health crisis, and this will force states to try and fill the regulatory void left by EPA’s failure. “

The decision to withdraw the draft rule came as Trump issued an executive order to freeze any new federal regulations pending review.

Though the initial rule would have applied to only about 13 facilities, almost 30,000 industrial sites have been identified as potential sources of PFAS in the environment, including drinking water sources, according to a 2021 analysis of EPA data by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). And the EPA itself has identified more than 120,000 facility sites around the US where the agency says people may be exposed to PFAS.

The proposal’s withdrawal is a “devastating setback” that “not only delays establishing critical federal standards but also sends a dangerous message giving polluters a green light to continue poisoning our water and communities without fear of consequence,” Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs, said in a statement. “It’s an unconscionable betrayal of the public’s health in favor of corporate interests.”

When asked about the move, an EPA spokesperson said it was “common transition procedures,” to pause major decisions, including a hold on new and pending regulations.

January 13, 2025

EPA boasts of clean energy advances as reversal threat looms

By Shannon Kelleher

In the final week before Donald Trump takes office, federal regulators announced today that the Biden administration has awarded nearly $69 billion through two historic pieces of legislation designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy costs, support the clean energy transition and help communities address pollution.

“In just three years, [the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] has funded thousands of incredibly popular projects in every part of the country, from electrifying school buses in rural Texas to replacing lead pipes in Pittsburgh,” Zealan Hoover, senior advisor to the EPA administrator, said on a press call Friday.

As of Jan. 6, the EPA had awarded 93% of grant funding made available by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), according to the new report. Biden signed the IRA in August 2022, with the administration calling it “the largest investment in clean energy and climate action ever.” The agency has awarded 82% of funding through the so-called Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which passed in November 2021.

The report comes amid concerns that a Republican budget reconciliation bill could seek to reverse the IRA. A list of “spending reform options” reportedly distributed among House Republicans includes reversing $468 billion in Biden climate policies, which would entail repealing, among other measures, IRA green energy grants.

But while it may be easier to repeal the IRA under a Republican-controlled federal government, Republican lawmakers may hesitate to get rid of funding that benefits their constituents, according to the Brookings Institute, an independent, non-partisan think tank.

Almost 60% of announced IRA projects are in Republican congressional districts, according to a two-year review of the IRA released in August. That month, 18 Republican House Representatives signed a letter calling for attempts to repeal the IRA to leave the legislation’s energy tax credits in place.

December 19, 2024

Boosting LNG exports would harm people and the planet, DOE report concludes

By Shannon Kelleher

The US Department of Energy (DOE) this week released a report that concludes a rise in exports from the booming natural gas industry would lead to greater global fossil fuel emissions, expose already-vulnerable communities to more pollution and raise gas prices for consumers.

The publication “reinforces that a business as-usual approach is neither sustainable nor advisable,” said US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm in a statement.

“Unfettered” liquified natural gas (LNG) exports would increase the price of wholesale natural gas in the US by over 30%, said Granholm, impacting households, farmers and industry. The study also concluded that current US LNG exports are “already more than enough to meet global demand,” she said, and that while LNG has been suggested as an alternative to coal for some countries, the study “shows a world in which additional US LNG exports displace more renewables than coal globally.”

The report, published Dec. 17, comes after the Biden administration last January announced a pause on pending applications for facilities that export liquified natural gas (LNG) while the DOE reviewed the approval process, citing climate change considerations. In September, more than 125 scientists signed a letter addressed to Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, warning that the increase in natural gas production threatens to worsen climate change and jeopardize public health and the environment.

“Our hope is that we can now assess the future of natural gas exports based on the facts and ensure authorizations are reviewed in a manner that truly advances the public interest of all the American people,” said Granholm. “Special scrutiny needs to be applied toward very large LNG projects,” she added, noting that a project that exports 4 billion cubic feet of LNG per day would singlehandedly emit more climate-warming greenhouse gases than almost three-quarters of the world’s countries each did in 2023.

Washington,,D.c.,,Usa-,January,13,,2020:,Fda,Sign,Outside,Their

December 16, 2024

Scientists call on federal regulators to rid US agencies of corporate influence

By Shannon Kelleher

Scientists are calling for the incoming Trump administration to adopt a set of guidelines designed to ensure scientific integrity at federal agencies and loosen corporate influence on regulators charged with protecting Americans’ health.

The recommendations, published Dec. 16, state that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies must eliminate financial and political conflicts of interest from environmental health research, halt industry influence on advisory boards and use the best available science to identify the health risks of toxic chemicals, which are contributing to the rise in chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes.

Conflicts of interest that undermine the scientific process have resulted in “weakened chemical regulations, increased exposure to harmful chemicals, and greater risks to the health of families, workers, and communities,” the authors concluded.

“Our recommendations will not only strengthen the scientific frameworks of regulatory agencies but also enhance their ability to identify and mitigate toxic chemical exposures, protecting the health of all people who live in the US – especially those who are most susceptible to harm,” Rashmi Joglekar, director of science and policy at the University of California San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE), said in a press release. PRHE issued the guidelines.

The proposal has been endorsed by at least 48 scientists and public health experts and14 health and environmental organizations. Longer recommendations will be available in early January, said a spokesperson for PRHE.

The EPA and FDA said they plan to review the guidelines.

November 15, 2024

Can anything be done to Trump-proof the environment?

By Douglas Main

As advocacy groups brace for a new administration under President-elect Donald Trump —fearing a slew of deregulation and policy changes that would undermine a range of environmental health measures —some are pondering ways to try to “Trump-proof” the planet.

Trump racked up the worst environmental record of any president during his first term, according to several advocacy organizations, and many worry his second time around will be even worse.

They expect across-the-board cuts to federal budgets and staff, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, and other agencies that play key roles in protecting human and environmental health. And they forecast efforts to reverse environmentally friendly policies protested by powerful corporate players.

“I suspect Trump will be less restrained than last time… more aggressive and damaging,” said Brett Hartl, with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’ll wait for the storm to hit and fight back,” he added.

These concerns come after the Biden administration has implemented of many hard-fought measures such as new standards to address widespread contamination of US drinking water with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and environmental justice initiatives to better protect marginalized communities from industrial pollution.

The current administration has, just this month alone, completed a series of steps lauded by conservationists and environmentalists that include finalizing rules to limit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and finishing a proposal to restrict oil exploration and grazing in 65 million acres of sage grouse habitat.

September 19, 2024

EPA inspector general says agency improperly retaliated against scientists

By Douglas Main

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s inspector general concluded in a report released this week that three government scientists who filed disquieting complaints about their work within the agency under the Trump administration were indeed improperly treated.

The report concluded that the EPA scientists experienced retaliation for speaking out and scientifically disagreeing with leadership and others in the agency.

Most of the scientists had spoken out, internally, about disagreements concerning the safety of various chemicals, which was part of their work within the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Among their concerns, the scientists claimed that the EPA was not doing enough to protect the public from health risks of multiple substances, and that industry pressure was affecting the agency’s ability to do its job properly.

The report notes that one scientist sought to classify a certain unidentified chemical as having “reproductive toxicity,” only for a senior advisor to remove this wording.

In response to the scientists’ disagreeing and speaking out, the EPA reassigned them, skipped them over for promotion, and generally harassed them, calling them “piranhas,” “problematic,” or “pot-stirrers,” according to the complaints. A copy of the employees’ complaint that identified them by name was sent around to senior leaders and individuals mentioned in the complaint, including former coworkers, according to the inspector general’s report.

“The Inspector General’s findings point to ongoing scientific integrity problems in EPA that directly endanger public health,” Kyla Bennett, a former EPA attorney and scientist who is now the science policy director for the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which helped file three of the complaints, said in a statement.