logo
The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?

The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?

In the wake of the Trump administration's decision to dismantle the research arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a robust if little-known California agency known as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is poised to take on an even bigger role to bridge the gap.
The EPA this month announced that it was eliminating nearly 4,000 employees as part of a cost-saving 'reduction in force,' the majority of which are staffers from its Office of Research and Development — whose research into environmental risks and hazards underpins nearly all EPA rules and regulations. The reduction will save the agency $748.8 million, officials said.
'Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback,' read a statement from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. 'This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.'
The ORD had been in operation since the EPA was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and was focused on conducting scientific research to help advance the EPA's goals of protecting human health and the environment.
Experts said the decision to break up the research office sends a chilling signal for science and will leave more communities exposed to environmental hazards such as industrial chemicals, wildfire smoke and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — or PFAs — in drinking water, all of which are subject to the department's analysis.
'The people of this country are not well served by these actions,' read a statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. 'They are left more vulnerable.'
It also shifts the onus onto California and other states to fill the void left by the federal government. ORD's research supported work around Superfund site cleanups and environmental disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires or the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment.
'There will be another East Palestine, another Exxon Valdez [oil spill] — some disaster will happen ... and those communities will be hurt when they don't have to be,' said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at UC San Francisco and a former senior scientist and policy advisor with EPA's Office of Policy.
The Golden State appears better positioned than many others carry on the work — particularly through the small but mighty department Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, located within the California Environmental Protection Agency.
'California has for some time developed a pretty robust infrastructure of assessing the health harms of toxic chemicals and pollutants,' Woodruff said. 'So in that way, we're better off than almost any other state because we have such a stellar group of scientists.'
Indeed, California is known for some of its more rigorous health-based standards and regulations, such as the Proposition 65 warnings posted by businesses across the state to advise people of the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which are overseen by OEHAA.
By dismantling ORD, the EPA is further politicizing the independent science and research that underpins so many of the nation's regulations, said Yana Garcia, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection. While California remains dedicated to such science, she said other states may not be so lucky.
'We will continue to keep the work of OEHHA strong and remain committed to it, but we're still getting a handle on what this loss really means,' Garcia said. 'It is a huge loss to California. It is an even bigger loss to so many other states that don't have an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments like we do.'
Kris Thayer, OEHHA's director, came to agency from ORD, where she directed its IRIS program for identifying and characterizing the human health hazards of chemicals. She said the state is 'absolutely going to be looking at every way that we can fill the void given our resources, but we are going to feel the pinch of this.'
'It's not only that the quantity of assessments will be reduced, but the credibility of the assessments will be reduced, because they will be developed by programs where there's a lot more opportunity for political interference in terms of the science that gets shaped,' she said.
Chemical industry and other anti-regulatory groups have lobbied for the EPA to limit ORD's influence. A January letter addressed to Zeldin spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and 80 other organizations said risk assessments developed by ORD were 'being used to develop overly burdensome regulations on critical chemistries essential for products we use every day.'
In particular, they cited the government's evaluation of chemicals including formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and hexavalent chromium, which can be used or created by industrial processes. The groups charged the agency with a lack of impartiality and transparency, a slow process and limited peer review.
Thayer noted that a lot of assessment work conducted by ORD is used in California. On the other hand, a number of states and EPA programs also look to California's assessments.
'We're going to be monitoring how this unfolds, but we're certainly going to be looking to do everything we can to meet capacity — we're not going to be able to fully meet it — and recognizing that our work will not only impact California, but can be used by other states,' she said.
Garcia said California has hired a number of people from the federal government over the past year and is open to absorbing more EPA employees who were recently laid off. OEHHA has a number of open positions.
'California remains open for [a] rigorous, science-based approach to health and environmental protections,' Garcia said.
Woodruff, of UCSF, said she hopes to see California and other states invest more in OEHAA and other scientific agencies by offering better salaries and bolstering staff numbers. But ultimately, she said the Golden State can use this moment to become an example for others to follow.
'California could be a real leader for all the other states who also want to keep doing right by their by their constituents and continuing to address toxic chemical exposure,' she said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Six months in, young people have soured on Trump's job handling
Six months in, young people have soured on Trump's job handling

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Six months in, young people have soured on Trump's job handling

Since Donald Trump took office for his second term, his job ratings have markedly declined — and more with young people than any other age group. What has made so many young Americans change their minds so quickly? For context, President Trump's electoral performance with voters under 30 improved a lot in 2024: While he lost this group to former Vice President Kamala Harris, it was by a much smaller margin than in 2020. And men under 30 ended up splitting roughly evenly between Trump and Harris. These trends prompted some observers to marvel at how conservative Gen Z had become, especially young men, and to wonder whether it marked a durable change. About half a year on from Inauguration Day, many young people have changed their minds on Trump. It looks more like many young voters gave him the benefit of the doubt when he took office, but their evaluations of him quickly started to sink. Among Americans ages 18-29, his job approval rating has fallen from a high of 55% just after he was inaugurated to 28% now. That means that half of his former approvers now disapprove. In percentage-point terms, the size of that drop is more than double what we've seen in any other age group. Which young voters have dropped off? Among young people, it's the less partisan and politically engaged who have seen the steepest drops. For example, about half of independents under 30 approved of Mr. Trump in February, but that has dropped to about one in five now. The same is true of young people who didn't vote in the 2024 election. Party identifiers and '24 voters have fallen off, too, but not to the same extent. There are also differences by gender, with young men starting out more approving of Mr. Trump than young women were. Women's ratings of the president had already begun dipping by March, while it was not until April — and the downturn in the U.S. stock market — that young men's ratings started to decline. Both have fallen steadily since then, but a faster drop among young men in the last few months has meant the gender gap in approval of Mr. Trump has shrunk. (See the bottom of this article for statistical details on estimating these smaller subgroups.) CBS News polling over the past few months offers several clues as to what young people are unhappy about these days. A majority now say Mr. Trump is doing different things than he promised during the 2024 campaign. That's a reversal in sentiment from early February, when seven in 10 said he's doing what he said he would. And it's young men who have been the most likely to flip on this question. On top of that, the administration is experiencing low points on several economic evaluations: The share of young people saying the economy is getting worse has risen to six in 10. And young Americans are less likely than older ones to see the job market as good. Overtime, young people have increasingly rated it as fairly or very in 10 also tell us that Mr. Trump's policies are making them worse off financially. That is the highest we've seen to date, and it represents a complete change from what young people expected when he was inaugurated. Back then, they were much more likely to say his policies would make them better off than worse majorities feel the Trump administration is focusing too much on tariffs (72%), deportations (64%), and ending DEI programs (55%). These shares have all grown significantly over time. By contrast, seven in 10 say the administration isn't focusing enough on lowering prices, which was a key campaign issue. Looking back and ahead… Instead of marking a permanent rightward shift, Mr. Trump's better-than-expected performance with young voters last year is beginning to look more like a temporary reaction. Indeed, less partisan voters tend to be more responsive to short-term forces, like the economic conditions that drove many at the ballot box in 2024. And when Trump was inaugurated, many young people hoped he would turn the economy around, with his initial ratings likely reflecting some optimism. This honeymoon period quickly faded. His 18-29 rating is now below Joe Biden's when he left office. Looking ahead to 2026, Republicans' electoral success may depend on both the president's numbers and youth turnout. If views of Mr. Trump's job handling don't improve over the next year, they could be a drag on GOP congressional candidates. And while young voters are less likely to turn out in non-presidential years, both the 2018 and 2022 midterms saw record numbers go to the polls, including voters under 30. In fact, in 2022, young voters turned out at a rate that came close to saving the Democrats' majority. In a tight contest, they could be pivotal again. Estimating small subgroups in polls In order to more precisely estimate trends in approval among young people, I aggregated our polls and ran a statistical model that controls for respondents' race, education level, 2024 vote, and survey date. Why take this approach? All polls have a margin of error, and the margin of error is greater for subgroups within the poll, as a function of sample size and routine weighting. So, even though young people are represented proportionate to their share of the population, estimating what percentage of them approve of the president naturally comes with a higher margin of error. It's driven by random variation in which types of young people respond to a given poll, and margins of error grow as you slice data more thinly — for instance, in disaggregating young people by gender. Since a single poll can only do so much, we can combine data across polls to boost sample sizes and gain confidence in our estimates. Aggregating surveys yields sample sizes of over 1,200 men and 1,300 women under 30 to analyze. And the model smoothens out poll-to-poll randomness within these subgroups. The modeled estimates for any given time point are consistently within range of the unmodeled survey data, typically within a few points. And importantly, they tell the same story: both young men and young women's views of Trump have worsened, and the gender gap has decreased. John Oliver: The 60 Minutes Interview Finding the plane used for Argentina's dictatorship-era "death flights" | 60 Minutes Immigration agent told 18-year-old U.S. citizen "you got no rights here" during arrest

Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway
Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway

Washington Post

time9 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway

In its push to remove transgender athletes from Olympic sports, the Trump administration provided the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee a detailed legal brief on how such a move would not conflict with the Ted Stevens Act, the landmark 1978 federal statute governing the Olympic movement. That gave the USOPC the cover it needed to quietly change its policy, though the protection offers no guarantee the new policy won't be challenged in court.

Trump confirms possible China trip, but insists ‘not seeking' Xi summit
Trump confirms possible China trip, but insists ‘not seeking' Xi summit

New York Post

time10 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump confirms possible China trip, but insists ‘not seeking' Xi summit

President Trump has revealed that he may jet over to China in the near future, but rebuffed suggestions that he is seeking a summit with Beijing counterpart Xi Jinping amid intense trade negotiations between the two economic superpowers. 'The Fake News is reporting that I am SEEKING a 'Summit' with President Xi of China. This is not correct, I am not SEEKING anything!' Trump wrote on Truth Social late Monday from Scotland, where he wrapped up a five-day visit Tuesday. 'I may go to China, but it would only be at the invitation of President Xi, which has been extended. Otherwise, no interest! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' Staffers for Trump and Xi have held discussions about setting up a meeting between the two leaders, potentially on the sidelines of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in South Korea, which takes place Oct. 30-Nov. 1, Reuters reported last week. It is unclear whether any discussions of Trump traveling to China directly have been broached. 3 President Trump confirmed ongoing talks with China about him meeting with leader Xi Jinping. Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images 3 President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping's last in-person meeting took place in 2019. XinhuaTrump and Xi last met face-to-face in June 2019 on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. The US and China have until Aug. 12 to reach a full-fledged trade agreement following a months-long truce that has seen duties temporarily come down from up to 145% on Chinese exports to the US and 125% on American goods. Negotiators from Washington and Beijing are holding a third round of talks this week in Stockholm. 'We have a good relationship with China,' Trump told reporters Monday at his Turnberry club on the west coast of Scotland. 'China's tough.' In 2024, China was the third-largest US trading partner among individual nations — behind only Mexico and Canada — with trade between the two nations amounting to $582.4 billion. Further complicating negotiations is Trump's looming threat to impose secondary tariffs of 100% against countries that trade with Moscow until the Kremlin ends its invasion of Ukraine and agrees a peace deal. China and India, in particular, have continued to purchase energy from Russia throughout the 41-month-old war on Ukraine. China has also been accused of providing Moscow's arms industry with critical supplies. 3 The Trump administration is currently involved in trade negotiations with China. Getty Images Beyond trade tensions, US officials have repeatedly warned about Chinese cyber attacks, such as the Salt Typhoon operation that breached American telecommunications systems. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump administration blocked Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te from stopping in New York City during a planned diplomatic visit to Central America later this year. China has long claimed sovereignty over the island state of Taiwan, which has its own currency, military and government. The US adheres to the One China Policy on paper, which acknowledges Beijing's claim, but takes no position on it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store