Major Restructuring at EPA Targets Scientific Unit
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is undergoing a major reorganization as the Trump administration moves forward with its plan to dissolve the agency’s central research arm. The Office of Research and Development (ORD), which for decades provided scientific expertise for regulatory decision-making, is being shut down. This action forms part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal government and reshape the agency’s internal structure.
ORD was responsible for analyzing a wide range of environmental hazards, from toxic chemicals and smog to climate-related events such as wildfires and water pollution. It also administered research grants for universities and private institutions focused on environmental science. With the closure of this office, those responsibilities are being reassigned or absorbed by other parts of the agency.
In place of the ORD, the EPA is introducing a new entity: the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. According to official sources, this new office is intended to streamline research and better align it with the agency’s rulemaking and technical guidance to states. The EPA claims this change reflects a modernization of its operations.
Staff Reductions and Budget Cuts Fuel Controversy
The restructuring comes alongside a significant workforce reduction across the EPA. The agency has already reduced its number of employees from over 16,000 to approximately 12,400, and the current plan includes cutting nearly a quarter of the total staff. These changes are expected to save around $748.8 million in federal spending.
While the EPA asserts that no employees have yet been laid off, internal communications confirm that some staff have been reassigned and that terminations are anticipated in the near future. Critics argue that the cuts are targeting the agency’s core scientific capacity while increasing the presence of politically appointed personnel.
In an effort to justify the move, the EPA points to an expansion in other scientific areas, including the hiring of additional laboratory personnel and technical experts in air, water, and chemical regulation. These new hires are reportedly being integrated into the agency’s program offices, where thousands of scientists and engineers already operate.
Critics Warn of Long-Term Damage to Public Health
Despite the stated goals of efficiency and modernization, the decision has sparked strong backlash from environmental advocates and public health experts. They argue that dismantling ORD will severely undermine the agency’s ability to conduct and apply environmental science, leaving policymakers without reliable, up-to-date data to guide regulations.
Several organizations and scientific advisors have warned that this move could have long-term consequences for national health and safety. They point to the agency’s recent actions to cut travel and training budgets, further reducing its ability to engage with external scientific communities or adopt best practices.
Opponents also highlight the elimination of other units within the EPA, such as the Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments. Taken together, these cuts are seen as a fundamental shift away from science-based policymaking and toward a politically driven agenda.
Industry Reactions and Broader Implications
Reactions from industry have been more mixed. While some environmental groups see the restructuring as a dangerous precedent, others, particularly those representing chemical manufacturers, support the reallocation of resources as a necessary step toward more efficient governance.
The American Chemistry Council has publicly endorsed the effort to evaluate and potentially reassign agency resources, emphasizing the importance of fiscal responsibility in meeting statutory obligations. However, concerns remain that without an independent research unit, the EPA could become more reliant on external data, potentially introducing conflicts of interest in regulatory processes.
This move marks a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy. As the agency adapts to its new structure, the true impact on environmental oversight and public health will unfold over the coming years.