Zeldin backs lab in top House appropriator's district
As EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pursues plans to gut the agency's research arm, he appeared ready Thursday to shield at least one facility: a laboratory located in the district of House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole.
The work done at the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma, is important and 'should be enhanced,' Zeldin told the Oklahoma Republican during a House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Trump administration's EPA budget proposal for next year.
His answer appeared to satisfy Cole, who had asked Zeldin to explain how the Kerr Center's work — which includes groundwater research and ecosystem restoration — informs EPA's ability to carry out its statutory functions.
Advertisement
But the lab is part of EPA's Office of Research and Development, which would effectively be dissolved as a stand-alone entity under the first phase of a restructuring unveiled by Zeldin earlier this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘gold standard' politicizes federal science
The first time Donald Trump was president, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a regulation known as the 'science transparency' rule. The administration liked to call it the 'secret science' rule. 'Transparency' sounds positive, but this rule instead prevented the EPA from using some of the best available science to protect human health. For example, it required the EPA to ignore or downplay studies that established links between exposure to chemicals and health damage if those studies were based on confidential patient information that could not be released to the public. The problem: Many health studies, including those underpinning many U.S. pollution rules, rely on confidential patient information. A U.S. District Court struck down the rule on procedural grounds a few weeks after it was issued. But now, the idea is back. Trump's so-called Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order of May 23, 2025, resurrects many features of the EPA's vacated rule, but it applies them to all federal agencies. To many readers, the executive order might sound reasonable. It mentions 'transparency,' 'reproducibility' and 'uncertainty.' However, the devil is in the details. 'Transparency' implies that scientists should adequately explain all elements of their work, including hypotheses, methods, results and conclusions in a way that helps others see how those conclusions were reached. 'Data transparency' is an expectation that scientists should share all data used in the study so other scientists can recalculate the results. This is also known as 'reproducibility.' Trump's executive order focuses on reproducibility. If there are errors in the data or methods of the original study, then being able to reproduce its results may ensure consistency but not scientific rigor. More important to scientific rigor is 'replicability.' Replicability means different scientists, working with different data and different methods, can arrive at consistent findings. For example, studies of human exposure to a set of pollutants at different locations, and with different populations, that consistently find relationships to health effects, such as illness and premature death, can increase confidence in the findings. Replicability doesn't require releasing confidential health data, as reproducibility would. Instead, it looks for the same results broadly from other sources. The science transparency rule in the first Trump administration was intended to limit the EPA's ability to consider epidemiologic studies like those that established the health harms from exposure to secondhand smoke and to fine particles called PM2.5 in the air. These attempts to create barriers to using valid science echoed tactics used by the tobacco industry from the 1960s well into the 1990s to deny that tobacco use harmed human health. Many large-scale studies that assess how exposure to pollution can harm human health are based on personal data collected according to strict protocols to ensure privacy. Preventing policymakers from considering those findings means they are left to make important decisions about pollution and chemicals without crucial evidence about the health risks. Trump's new executive order also emphasizes 'uncertainty.' In the first Trump administration, the EPA administrator and his hand-picked science advisers, none of whom were epidemiologists, focused on 'uncertainty' in epidemiological studies used to inform decisions on air quality standards. The EPA's scientific integrity policy requires that policymakers 'shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions.' That might sound reasonable. However, in the final 2020 rule for the nation's PM2.5 air quality standard, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that 'limitations in the science lead to considerable uncertainty' to justify not lowering the standard, the level considered unhealthy. PM2.5 comes largely from fossil fuel combustion in cars, power plants and factories. In contrast, an independent external group of scientific experts, which I was part of as an environmental engineer and former EPA adviser, reviewed the same evidence and came to a very different conclusion. We found clear scientific evidence supporting a more stringent standard for PM2.5. The executive order also requires that science be conducted in a manner that is 'skeptical of its findings and assumptions.' A true skeptic can be swayed to change an inference based on evidence, whereas a denialist holds a fixed view irrespective of evidence. Denialists tend to cherry-pick evidence, set impossible levels of evidence and engage in logical fallacies. The first Trump administration stacked the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which advises EPA on setting health-protective air quality standards, with opponents of environmental regulation, including people connected to industries the EPA regulates. The committee then amplified uncertainties. It also shifted the burden of proof in ways inconsistent with the statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The current administration has been dismantling science advisory committees in various agencies again and purging key EPA committees of independent experts. According to Trump, 'violations' of his executive order will be determined by a 'senior appointee designated by the agency head.' This means a political appointee accountable to the White House. Thus, science in each federal agency will be politicized. The political appointee is required to 'correct scientific information.' Anyone can file a 'request for correction' regarding a published agency report. During the first Trump administration, chemical companies or their representatives repeatedly filed requests for changes to final EPA toxicity assessments on ethylene oxide and chloroprene. The administration delayed health-protective actions, which were finally addressed during the Biden administration for both chemicals. The request for correction process is intended to correct errors, not to bias assessments to be more favorable to industry and to delay protective actions. While the language of the executive order may seem innocuous based on a casual reading, it risks undermining unbiased science in all federal agencies, subject to political whims. Setting impossible bars for 'transparency' can mean regulators ignore relevant and valid scientific studies. Overemphasizing uncertainties can be used to raise doubt and unduly undermine confidence in robust findings. A politicized process also has the potential to punish federal employees and to ignore external peer reviewers who have the temerity to advance evidence-based findings contrary to White House ideology. Thus, this executive order could be used to deprive the American public of accurate and unbiased information regarding chemicals in the environment. That would prevent the development of effective evidence-based policies necessary for the protection of human health, rather than advancing the best available science. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University Read more: EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean? How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn't want you to see EPA's 'secret science' rule will make it harder for the agency to protect public health H. Christopher Frey receives funding from the California Air Resources Board via a research grant to North Carolina State University. He was on leave from NCSU to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2021 to 2024. From 2021 to 2022, he served as Deputy Assistant Administrator of Science Policy. From 2022-20224, he served as the senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development and concurrently served as the EPA Science Advisor. He was a member of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee from 2008 to 2012, and chaired CASAC from 2012 to 2015.
News24
an hour ago
- News24
'Very disappointed' Trump in stunning live break-up with Musk
Trump says he is 'very disappointed' in Elon Musk after criticism of his tax and spending bill. Musk hits back on X, calling Trump 'ungrateful' and claiming he helped him win the 2024 election. Tesla shares drop 8% as public fallout between the two billionaires rattles markets. Tensions between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into public view on Thursday, as the US president said he was 'very disappointed' by his billionaire former aide's criticisms and Musk hit back in real time on social media. 'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after Musk slammed his tax and spending mega-bill as an 'abomination'. The world's richest man responded by live-tweeting on his X social media platform as Trump spoke on television, saying that the Republican would not have won the 2024 election without him and slamming him for 'ingratitude.' Where is the man who wrote these words? Was he replaced by a body double!? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 In an extraordinary rant as visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sat mutely beside him, 78-year-old Trump unloaded on SpaceX and Tesla boss Musk in his first comments on the issue. 'I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here... All of a sudden, he had a problem,' Trump said when asked about Musk. The clash comes less than a week since Trump held a grand Oval Office farewell for Musk as he wrapped up his time leading the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). South African-born Musk, 53, hit back minutes later, saying Trump's claims he had advance sight of the bill were 'false.' 'Whatever,' he added above a video of Trump saying Musk was upset about the loss of subsidies for electric vehicles. Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Musk then ratcheted up the public spat even further, saying the Republican would have lost the election without his support. He was the biggest donor to Trump's campaign, to the tune of nearly $300 million. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk said on X. 'Such ingratitude.' Tesla shares fell sharply on Wall Street, down 8%, after his comments, in a sign of the huge stakes for a falling out between the world's richest man and its most powerful. 'A little make-up?' A wistful-sounding Trump took reporters through the break-up with Musk on live television, in what at times sounded more like a therapy session than a meeting with a foreign leader. Trump talked about Musk's farewell appearance in the Oval Office on Friday, when he turned up with a black eye that he said was caused by a punch from his son. Musk, at the time, was also facing reports of drug use on the Trump campaign trail. 'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, you want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup,' Trump said. 'But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is.' Trump said he could understand why Musk was upset with some of the steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the NASA space agency, which the tech tycoon had backed. Through it all, the visiting German chancellor sat silently. Merz had prepared to avoid a repeat of the ambushes that Trump unleashed on the Ukrainian and South African presidents in the Oval Office - but in the end it was Musk that the US president ambushed. At the center of the bitter row is Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on tax and spending. The centrepiece of his domestic agenda, it aims to continue tax cuts from his first term - and could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk, however, called it a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday on the grounds that it will increase the US deficit. A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to 'kill the bill,' and for an alternative plan that 'doesn't massively grow the deficit.'
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
