EPA employees sign ‘declaration of dissent’ over agency moves under Trump

A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency’s policies under the Trump administration, saying they “undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment”.

More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes 20 Nobel laureates.

The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June.

“Since the Agency’s founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished [its] mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,” the letter read.

Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond on Monday to messages seeking comment.

“I’m really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we’re not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,” said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the office of environmental justice and external civil rights, while the administration works to close down her department.

Hertzberg’s work focused on the most vulnerable groups affected by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with pre-existing and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That was not supposed to be controversial, but it had become so in this political climate, she said.

“Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren’t, then our government is failing,” she said.

Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent was not motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hoped it would help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established – which “only matters if you breathe air and drink water”.

The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing the EPA’s progress in America’s most vulnerable communities; dismantling the office of research and development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and wellbeing.

Under Lee Zeldin, the agency’s administrator, the EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas.

Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA’s research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he is seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275bn every year.

“People are going to die,” said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week’s east coast heatwave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. “And if we don’t have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,” she added.

Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding.

Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she was “living the repercussions of everything”. She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding.

She said it was a long-term problem if we are not supporting the next generation of scientists: “That’s decades worth of loss.”