Government Layoffs Could Make It Easier to Scrap Heat Safety Rules

Scientific American

03-06-2025

CLIMATEWIRE | When federal regulators were crafting a first-ever proposal to protect workers from extreme heat, they relied on government health experts who had been working on the deadly effects of high temperatures for years.
Now that entire team is gone due to President Donald Trump's personnel purges.
It comes ahead of summertime heat waves that are intensifying because of climate change, raising the stakes for the 2024 draft heat rule that took decades to propose and whose fate now rests in the hands of an administration that is eviscerating climate programs. Extreme heat kills more U.S. residents annually than all other disasters.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The heat experts have been fired, placed on leave or forced out at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency, called NIOSH, was the first one to sound the alarm on the dangers that heat poses to workers. It recommended safety regulations in 1975, decades before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed the nation's first heat rule last year.
The entire heat team at NIOSH was pushed out of the agency this spring, along with hundreds of experts who were studying other issues, as part of a massive reorganization at the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The layoffs, which take effect this week, come as climate change supercharges temperatures, blanketing the nation in suffocating heat every summer.
The personnel purge could also hamstring OSHA at the Department of Labor, as the agency considers whether to move forward with finalizing the heat rule under Trump or ditch it. Preserving it promises to be harder without the heat experts.
'The ability to reach out to experts and work together and solve problems and keep people safe in an efficient manner — that's not going to be possible when you have an agency turned into Swiss cheese,' said Doug Parker, who led OSHA during the Biden administration.
Lawsuits have brought back some NIOSH staffers who work mostly on coal mining and firefighting projects, or who test respirators and other personal protective equipment. Some of them have heat expertise in those industries. But most NIOSH heat experts — including those who work with the farming and construction sectors, which see the most heat-related deaths, and those who specifically examine heat as a hazard — have not returned to their jobs.
The agency has also stopped all public communications on heat, just before summer threatens to bring suffocating temperatures. In the past, the agency would use social media campaigns and in-person presentations with employers to raise awareness about the dangers of heat.
None of that has happened. Its social media accounts have been silent since April 1, when HHS told its workforce of the layoffs.
'If it stays the way it is right now, no one is going to be doing heat,' said one NIOSH worker who came back to the agency after being laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly.
'Very open line of communication'
Congress created NIOSH in 1970 — by passing the same law that enacted OSHA — to 'develop and establish' safety standard recommendations for regulators. NIOSH had the experts, and OSHA had the regulators. In the 50 years since the agency initially advocated for a heat safety standard, it has made similar recommendations two other times, most recently in 2016.
Because NIOSH has been at the forefront of identifying heat as a danger to workers, its experts have also been the preeminent researchers on the issue. The agency has conducted research into how electrolyte drinks compare to water when rehydrating workers and how protective equipment can make workers hotter than if they were only exposed to ambient air. It has also helped determine how to measure what heat truly feels like in work environments.
When OSHA finally proposed national heat protections last summer, it cited its sister agency's work more than 250 times. The regulation would require employers to provide water and rest breaks to workers when heat rises above 80 degrees and paid rest breaks when temperatures exceed 90 degrees.
'We had a very open line of communication to discuss any questions they had while working on the regulation,' said one NIOSH worker who was laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly.
Almost every aspect of the proposed rule has a citation that leads back to NIOSH, from the definitions of heat stress, to the explanation of how heat affects the human body, to a description about how hydration helps prevent heat-related dangers.
'We really fostered a strong relationship with NIOSH and it was at a peak level, so it is a tragedy what has happened,' said Parker, the former OSHA leader.
As the layoffs take effect this week, it could complicate OSHA's consideration of the heat rule. In mid-June, the agency is scheduled to hold a weekslong hearing to let the public weigh in on the draft regulation. Normally, when worker advocates and industry representatives testify at OSHA hearings, agency staff is able to ask follow-up questions that can help shape the outcome.
It's unclear if NIOSH experts — those who still have jobs — will testify at the hearing. Neither HHS nor the CDC responded to questions about expert testimony.
HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said Kennedy "has been working hard to ensure that the critical functions under NIOSH remain intact."
"The Trump administration is committed to supporting coal miners and firefighters, and under the secretary's leadership, NIOSH's essential services will continue as HHS streamlines its operations," she said. "Ensuring the health and safety of our workforce remains a top priority for the department."
'They are neutral'
Parker said holding a public hearing, and continuing the heat rulemaking, without NIOSH experts would be like prosecutors trying to convict a murderer without having the testimony of a medical examiner.
'It's like going to trial without your expert witness,' he said. 'They are neutral; they help review not only the content of the rule, but the comments of other advocates and industries. It's a well you can go to again and again.'
Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary of OSHA during the Obama administration, said NIOSH is a helpful resource when industry and worker groups provide conflicting information. The laws governing OSHA say it can only issue rules to protect workers that are also practical and cost-effective for employers, which means the agency has to be able to justify every aspect of a regulation. Most end up in court.
'If they have two opposing opinions and their rule is agreeing with one, they need to carefully explain why they chose what they did, and they spend an enormous amount of time justifying their rules, often with the help of NIOSH expertise and research,' Barab said.
Rebecca Reindel, safety and health director at the AFL-CIO, said she is worried that without NIOSH testimony OSHA will be more likely to kill the heat rule.
The agency has been under pressure from industry groups to stop work on the rule or water down its protections. The oil and gas industry has said moving forward on the rule would jeopardize Trump's vision of achieving 'energy dominance.'
NIOSH's testimony, she said, would be important to counteract that narrative.
'When you have industry groups saying 'we don't want this' or 'it's too expensive,' you want that neutral party that has actually done the research into what interventions work and that knows of how they have been successfully deployed in other workplaces,' Reindel said. 'Without NIOSH experts at this hearing, we lose a very critical part of the testimony and a part of the record we need to ensure that OSHA does regulate this hazard and uses the best available evidence and information.'