EPA plans to clip its managerial corps as the agency is reshaped under the Trump administration.
More than a dozen top executive positions will be eliminated, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by POLITICO’s E&E News. The reduction in the agency’s leadership ranks comes as it undergoes a wide-ranging reorganization and thousands of staff have left its payroll.
Ending those positions will impact EPA’s “institutional knowledge” and continuity of career leadership across administrations, said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who served 40 years at EPA, including as principal deputy assistant administrator for science.
“If the agency is really streamlining the organization and having fewer leaders who help make sure the work gets done, that could complicate the effectiveness of how the agency would implement the work that it wants to do,” Orme-Zavaleta said.
Last month, EPA submitted a report to the Office of Personnel Management detailing how it will allocate executive positions “as a result of agency reorganization and workforce reshaping.”
The document shows that three Senior Executive Service positions had been abolished and a further 10 were planned to be abolished at EPA, indicating its SES cohort will thin from 332 down to 319.
The total figures for future allocations for SES and other top positions are redacted throughout EPA’s report under FOIA’s deliberative process exemption. Yet after reviewing OPM’s model template, those figures can be calculated by subtracting the actual and planned abolished positions from current allocations listed in the report.
Stan Meiburg, who served 39 years at EPA, including as acting deputy administrator during the Obama administration, said those SES positions have “significant management responsibilities” that oversee many subordinates.
“One would assume that SES positions that were focused on climate change or DEI would have been particularly targeted in these cutbacks, although even in the Biden administration that was a pretty small number,” Meiburg said.
Asked about EPA’s report to OPM, agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said in a statement, “EPA has worked to identify a better structure for the agency” to protect the environment, implement the administration’s priorities, guard taxpayer dollars and stick to “gold-standard science.”
“We remain confident EPA has the resources needed to accomplish EPA’s core mission,” Hirsch said, adding the agency “values the work of all of our employees and we look forward to continuing to work with our entire workforce to provide clean air, land, and water for all Americans.”
EPA’s statement didn’t address E&E News’ questions about which offices and programs will see executive position cuts, nor did it confirm calculations made for future allocations.
The agency spokesperson noted EPA does not comment on “individual personnel actions.”
Another report released in response to E&E News’ FOIA request showed EPA’s human capital and executive resources offices were involved in proposing manager jobs to be allocated. That report is heavily redacted.
Senior science jobs untouched
EPA has embarked on a vast reorganization since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year. Program offices, including its air, chemicals, solid waste and water components, were to be reshaped, according to the agency’s budget documents.
Further, environmental justice programs in headquarters and regional branches have been eliminated while scientific staff were moved out of the Office of Research and Development.
Yet EPA’s report to OPM indicates no Scientific and Professional, or ST, positions will be abolished. Those 19 jobs, typically filled by hardcore scientists steeped in the agency’s research, will remain in place.
Orme-Zavaleta said it may mean people are still occupying those positions, which the agency still needs even after dismantling the research office. Some of those STs could be in the Office of Applied Sciences and Environmental Solutions, a new, smaller science component housed in the administrator’s office.
“It’s a hopeful sign that what they’ve been asked to do, and the expertise that they bring, is still valued,” said Orme-Zavaleta.
At a hearing earlier this month, Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said ORD still exists at EPA and has 138 scientists on the job.
EPA’s statement also didn’t confirm that figure for its research office staff.
“EPA has improved its structure by integrating scientific staff directly into our program offices instead of being siloed in the Office of Research and Development,” said Hirsch.
She continued that OASES is “elevating research efforts, putting science at the forefront of the agency’s rulemaking, and enhancing technical assistance service for states and local partners.”
EPA’s workforce drops
In addition, EPA has abolished only one Senior Level, or SL, position, with no plans to eliminate more, leaving 27 such spots in place, according to its report to OPM.
Kevin Minoli, formerly EPA’s top career lawyer, said those jobs may not be required to manage employees the same way senior executives do. But they are still considered high level and are sprinkled throughout the agency.
“They generally are created to fill sometimes a unique but not always permanent need,” said Minoli, now a partner at law firm Alston & Bird.
EPA’s workforce has departed in droves since Trump’s second inauguration.
Overall, 2,331 employees have separated from the agency in that time, according to data as of November compiled by OPM.
Further, that data shows EPA’s workforce has declined to 14,926 for fiscal 2026. By the end of this fiscal year, the agency is forecasted to be at roughly 12,500 employees.
Hirsch said the agency’s new reorganization phase is anticipated to bring in more than $300 million in additional annual savings.
“With these actions, EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency’s core mission, while Powering the Great American Comeback,” she said.
Meiburg said despite its small size compared with other agencies, EPA has had a substantial executive corps, which reflects its importance for the larger economy.
“Entire industries can stand or fall based on EPA’s decisions, communities can be profoundly affected, and all of us rely on EPA decisions about clean air, drinking water, pesticides and toxic chemicals,” he said.
Contact this reporter on Signal at KevinBogardus.89.
