US EPA research in limbo as scientists brace for massive job cuts
WASHINGTON, May 1 (Reuters) - As forecasters predict another devastating year of wildfires, a tool developed by Environmental Protection Agency scientists to study the health effects of hazardous smoke has effectively been grounded by a looming Trump administration reorganization, three people familiar with the impact of the planned cuts say.
Kolibri, a sensor the size of a shoebox, was developed by EPA scientists to enable research not being done anywhere else in the world: It can attach to a drone, fly into smoke plumes and measure just about any kind of airborne pollution.
The future of this project and a range of other research across 50 states is at risk as the EPA prepares a massive agency overhaul, which is expected to include a closure of its Office of Research and Development (ORD), according to more than a dozen EPA scientists who declined to be identified as they were not authorised to speak to the media.
On Thursday EPA ORD staff received an email, which was seen by Reuters, saying there will be an all-hands meeting on Friday late afternoon.
The EPA said its drone program remains active, but the three sources familiar with the Kolibri project said impending layoffs of key staff will halt operations.
Leda Kobziar, a wildland fire science professor at the University of Idaho, praised the Kolibri sensor team as global leaders in their field. 'Their technology and tools play a pivotal role doing smoke research that no one else right now can do,' she told Reuters.
Internal documents reviewed by the U.S. House Science Committee indicate up to 75% of the EPA's 1,200 Office of Research and Development staff could face layoffs, with the office's closure part of President Trump's plan to cut the agency's budget by 65%.
More than a dozen EPA scientists told Reuters they are operating amid anxiety and uncertainty, as research has stalled across 11 offices due to slashed resources and travel. Projects affected include health risk assessments of "forever chemicals" like PFAS, investigations into respiratory illness in the rural south, and studies on the spread of valley fever, a fungal disease exacerbated by climate change and wildfires.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told reporters last week that ORD reorganization plans are still being discussed.
"I'm going to announce it as soon as I possibly can, but I want to make sure that it's as thoughtful as possible," he said. "This conversation isn't just about the Office of Research and Development. This is about every single office."
Zeldin said he does not have a specific number goal for cutting agency staff, but the agency needs enough staff to "fulfill our statutory obligations, to fulfill our core mission, to be able to power the great American comeback."
EVERYONE FEELS 'TERRIBLE', SAYS SCIENTIST
One ORD scientist who works out of EPA's headquarters said it has been hard to focus. "Every day we feel like the rug could be pulled out from underneath us," the scientist said.
"Everyone feels really terrible."
Another researcher based in North Carolina said research planning is on pause and the agency is taking away essential tools, such as credit cards and tech services.
Some scientists working on topics under scrutiny, like environmental justice, have stopped work completely.
An epidemiologist investigating air pollution in the rural south has halted work and community outreach due to exposure-related illnesses linked to a facility. "It's taken me years to build trust with these communities, and now I feel like I have to turn my back on them," the scientist said.
A researcher from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) said its 60-person team remains in limbo. IRIS, which assesses pollutants like PFAS and arsenic, may merge with the EPA's chemical policy office, threatening its independence.
Potential dissolution of ORD could undermine scientific integrity and leave states ill-equipped to address public health risks, according to the EPA scientists who spoke to Reuters.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, a 40-year EPA veteran who led ORD until 2021, said the agency's independence was preserved in prior administrations, including Trump's first term.
A centralized ORD ensures science informs multiple programs, she explained. "This administration isn't focusing on statutory requirements — it's just blowing things up," she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Veterans slam Trump's ‘political' deployment of Marines and National Guard to LA: ‘Citizens are not enemy combatants'
Donald Trump 's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles is a thinly veiled 'authoritarian' and politically motivated attempt to inflame protests and crush dissent, veterans and legal experts warn. Trump is relying on federal law that allows the president to call up the National Guard to respond to domestic unrest, an action known commonly as federalizing the normally state-authorized Guard. Even then, those troops have only a limited mission in supporting federal law enforcement agents and federal buildings at the center of protests against the administration's mass deportation agenda. But now, with his National Guard deployment combined with sending some 700 Marines to L.A., veterans groups, military law experts and Democratic officials fear the president is testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets — and violating service members' commitments to stay out of domestic politics. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath — not to a person, not to a party, but to the Constitution,' said Marine veteran Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a national nonpartisan advocacy group. 'What we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to turn the military into a political prop,' she told The Independent. Trump is not deploying troops for national defense but 'domestic intimidation,' she added. 'That's not just just politicizing the military — it's crossing a dangerous line,' Goldbeck told The Independent. Trump's military threats are 'how authoritarian regimes take power' and signal the president's wider ambitions for 'the weaponization of the military for political gain,' according to veterans advocacy group Common Defense. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' Army veteran and Common Defense political director Naveed Shah said. 'The idea that Marines would be deployed to suppress the very people we're meant to protect is a disgrace. It's un-American,' Marine Corps veteran and Common Defense organizer Jojo Sweatt added. The last time a president federalized the National Guard against the will of a state governor was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery — two weeks after the violence of 'Bloody Sunday' on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Johnson did so after Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace told the president that his state 'refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of the marchers, according to Johnson's proclamation. But 60 years later, Trump is deploying troops not to defend civil rights activists but to protect law enforcement and federal property. Activating troops against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states' rights,' retired Major Gen. Randy Manner said in a statement to Fox News. 'There are over a million badged and trained members of law enforcement in this country for the governor to ask for help if he needs it,' he added. 'While this is presently a legal order, it tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' Trump's open-ended memo invoking military deployment does not single out Los Angeles or even California. It empowers the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, called Trump's actions 'massive overreach' and 'crazy broad,' seemingly paving the way for the administration 'to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want.' Invoking 'protective power' authority without any geographical limits effectively creates an unprecedented and 'dangerous' nationwide order, according to Lee. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Instead, Trump is currently relying on a far more limited statute that taps his 'protective power' authority, which does not allow the military to conduct law enforcement activities — unlike the Insurrection Act, which is excluded from federal statute that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'The public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations,' according to University of Houston Law Center professor Chris Mirasola, a former attorney-advisor at the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel. If troops are pulled into violent confrontations, Trump could use those incidents to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, opening the door for active-duty military to face off against Americans not just in the streets of Los Angeles but across the country. 'This is an unnecessary, unprecedented and predictable misuse of military power against American citizens,' according to Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'And Trump has now thrust our troops into the middle of the most explosive issue in America,' he added. 'And this is likely just the start. We could see a clash and crisis between Trump and governors and mayors across America like we've never seen.' A lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' The lawsuit is seeking records from the Trump administration regarding the use of military assets in immigration enforcement and 'potential authorities his administration would invoke to authorize federalizing law enforcement.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he said in a statement. 'Americans have a right to know who authorized it, what rationale was offered, and not just whether the government crossed a line — but by how much that line has been obliterated.'
NBC News
29 minutes ago
- NBC News
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. The filings come after Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move that the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
US marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests
Marine Corps Gen Eric Smith told a budget hearing on Capitol Hill that the battalion has not yet been sent to any protests. The marines were trained for crowd control but have no arrest authority and are there to protect government property and personnel, he said. Mr Trump doubled the number of Guard troops being deployed soon after the first wave of 2,000 began arriving on Sunday following days of protests driven by anger over the President's enforcement of immigration laws that critics say are breaking apart migrant families. The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward… — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 The demonstrations continued on Monday but were far less raucous, with thousands of people peacefully attending a rally at City Hall and hundreds more protesting outside a federal complex that includes a detention centre where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids across the city. The protests in Los Angeles, a city of four million people, have largely been centred in several blocks of downtown and a few other spots. At daybreak on Tuesday, guard troops were stationed outside the detention centre, but there was no sign of US marines. Obscene slogans were directed at Mr Trump and federal law enforcement remained scrawled across several buildings. The US marines have been deployed (AP) At the Walt Disney Concert Hall, workers were busy washing away graffiti on Tuesday morning. In nearby Santa Ana, armoured vehicles blocked a road leading to federal immigration and government offices. Workers swept up plastic bottles and broken glass near buildings sprayed with graffiti. Mr Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Mayor Karen Bass and Mr Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth. They say he is putting public safety at risk by adding military personnel even though police say they do not need the help. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement that he was confident in the police department's ability to handle large-scale demonstrations and that the Marines' arrival without coordinating with the police department would present a 'significant logistical and operational challenge'. Senior politicians reacted with dismay to Mr Trump's move (AP) Mr Newsom called the deployments reckless and 'disrespectful to our troops' in a post on the social platform X. 'This isn't about public safety,' the governor said. 'It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego.' The protests began on Friday after federal immigration authorities arrested more than 40 people across Los Angeles and continued over the weekend as crowds blocked a major road and set self-driving cars on fire. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. Demonstrations spread on Monday to other cities nationwide, including San Francisco and Santa Ana, California, as well as Dallas and Austin, Texas. Authorities in Austin appeared to use chemical irritants to disperse a crowd that gathered near the state Capitol. The Trump Administration's escalation and provocation in California inflames tensions and incites violence. Now, the President of the United States said he would arrest a sitting American governor just for disagreeing with these actions. This is a hallmark of authoritarianism… — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 9, 2025 Texas governor Greg Abbott posted on social media that more than a dozen protesters were arrested. The Pentagon said deploying the National Guard and Marines costs 134 million dollars (£98.8 million). That figure emerged just after US defence secretary Pete Hegseth engaged in a into a testy back-and-forth about the costs during a congressional hearing. Mr Hegseth said the department has a budget increase and the money to cover the costs, and he defended Mr Trump's decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents doing their jobs. Meanwhile, Democratic members of California's congressional delegation on Tuesday accused the President of creating a 'manufactured crisis' with his orders to send in troops. Mr Trump came under sustained criticism (AP) Nancy Pelosi contrasted Trump's actions with his handling of the January 6 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol when law enforcement officers were beaten. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Ms Pelosi said. California's attorney general Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the use of National Guard troops following the first deployment, telling reporters that Mr Trump had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. He sought a court order declaring Mr Trump's use of the Guard unlawful and asking for a restraining order to halt the deployment. The President said the city would have been 'completely obliterated' if he had not deployed the Guard. US officials said the marines were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel, including immigration agents. A convoy of buses with blacked-out windows and escorted by sheriff's vehicles arrived overnight at a Navy facility just south of LA. Despite their presence, there has been limited engagement so far between the Guard and protesters while local law enforcement implements crowd control.
