The Trump administration is tightening its grip over EPA’s scientific enterprise as it prepares to relocate employees from its once esteemed research arm.
The agency’s new, smaller science office has laid out its policies on how EPA will approve new research and publish its work for the public, according to internal memos obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. Further, EPA’s remaining scientists from the now-dissolved Office of Research and Development received reassignments earlier this week, including many who will have to move if they want to continue working at the agency.
The agency’s nonstop swirl of change has suffocated agency scientists, said Chris Frey, who led EPA’s research office during the Biden administration. “The deck is stacked against scientists who want to do good-faith science,” Frey said.
Darya Minovi, a manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said, “We’ve seen the Trump administration be very clear that they’re unwilling to regulate pollutants.”
Minovi added, “But the thing that scares me most about these policies is that these are systemic changes that go beyond willingness and move into ability.”
Eight EPA employees, granted anonymity because they fear retaliation, spoke with E&E News about the changes afoot with the agency’s scientific work, including reassignments of the last ORD staff. They expressed frustration with how the agency is handling the transfers, which are perceived as yet another measure to traumatize the EPA workforce.
“It definitely feels punitive, especially as we were told no one would have to move,” said one agency employee. “Unfortunately, I have no idea if my expertise is a good fit. … The lack of information/clarity seems like a deliberate choice on their part.”
Earlier this week, EPA employees received an email from an anonymous address, Notice5, with their reassignments to head elsewhere in the agency as part of “a strategic restructuring effort.”
“At the core of this restructuring is the integration of scientific and related administrative expertise directly into EPA’s offices,” said the email, which was viewed by E&E News. “The effective date of your reassignment will be communicated at a later date.”
Staffers, puzzled by the emails, turned to their immediate supervisors but found they were not substantively involved in choosing who was being reassigned and why. Some were demoted or placed into positions where their skills weren’t relevant while others were told to relocate.
“There are concerns that some people are deliberately being given geographic reassignments as a pretext to force them out of the agency,” said a second EPA employee. “I feel like there are unidentified sinister forces at work here.”
On Thursday afternoon, research staffers who have been reassigned were scheduled to meet with human resources officials to learn more about the reassignments.
“Absolute insanity that they are literally closing ORD and only give us a lousy 45 minutes for office hours,” said a third EPA staffer, who is mourning the loss of the research office.
In response to questions for this story, EPA spokesperson Carolyn Holran said the agency’s reorganization over the past year will help EPA achieve its mission, “Power the Great American Comeback,” responsibly manage taxpayer dollars and make decisions “based on gold-standard science.”
“As part of this science-centered transformation, EPA has issued reassignment notices to those employees who remain in the Office of Research and Development,” Holran said.
‘No one knows what they’re supposed to be doing’
Research office staffers who remained at EPA were expecting to be reassigned last month, as the agency officially closed the program. Many had already been transferred into the air, chemical and water programs as well as a new unit, the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions.
The Trump administration in October formally opened OASES, a “solution-oriented,” “regulatory needs”-focused office, according to its website. It is slated to have roughly 500 staffers, a third of the research program’s workforce at the end of the Biden administration.
OASES staffers say they’ve gotten little direction on research priorities so far.
“No one knows what they’re supposed to be doing, all of management is so scared of making a mistake they won’t commit themselves to any decisions,” said a fourth EPA employee. “The staff left in OASES don’t have the resources or support to actually carry out any meaningful research, which they have not decided if we are allowed to publish or not yet.”
Dozens of agency employees have been affected by this round of job shifts. In total, 124 reassignment notices were sent, according to figures provided by EPA’s press office.
In addition, of those, 35 were geographic reassignments — as EPA told those staffers to relocate to continue working at the agency.
Union officials estimated for E&E News several of those told to move now work from the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Others are based in the agency’s Washington headquarters. And at least two employees in EPA’s Cincinnati office were notified of reassignments away from their current location.
A fifth EPA employee noticed a trend regarding those who have been reassigned outside where they work now. Those affected staffers have either signed an open dissent letter critical of the Trump administration, are eligible for retirement, have workplace accommodations for a disability or had opted out of the “deferred resignation” program after initially opting in.
“I feel they are still trying to reduce the numbers. I think they have no intent of paying those people to relocate,” said the employee, opining, “The agency just wants to pressure them to resign by threatening to relocate them.”
Justin Chen, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, EPA’s largest union, said in a statement the reassignments were “malevolent” and demanded no one be forced to relocate.
“Forcing these employees to uproot their lives or risk losing their jobs is not about operational need,” Chen said. “It is a transparent attempt to dismantle critical scientific capacity while pushing experienced public servants out the door.”
EPA does not comment on individual personnel actions, according to the agency’s press office.
Scientific priorities approved by political leadership
How EPA’s new science office plans to operate is now being detailed for staff.
Maureen Gwinn, the acting associate administrator and science adviser leading OASES, shared a pair of memos with employees in a March 25 email.
“Thank you, in advance, for your patience as we all work to implement these new interim policies and processes,” Gwinn said.
One memo laid out the approval process for OASES’ “Science Activities and Deliverables.”
“The work aligns with Agency and administration priorities, as articulated through EPA and White House strategic plans, initiatives, and directives,” said a text reproduction of the memo. It added work that addressed science needs of state and federal agencies, including EPA, “must be supported by appropriate political leadership.”
This approach will “ensure that there are ‘no surprises’ regarding OASES’ science and research activities,” the memo continued.
While there was a spot for a political official at the helm of the old research office, this new OASES approval process makes “political approval … the number one factor for a project to happen,” Frey said.
“In this context, scientists in OASES will not be allowed to release science that is not acceptable to political leadership,” Frey said.
Minovi said, “I think what’s more insidious is the heavy emphasis on political leadership approval, particularly when you think about this in the context of OASES being within the Office of the Administrator.”
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who served at EPA for 40 years, said the new guidance seems to replace the multiyear Strategic Research Action Plan with a “more ad hoc” approach, “inviting more micromanagement of specific work that could slow things down.”
“It does not encourage coordination or collaboration of work and can lead to inefficiency and impact of the work,” said Orme-Zavaleta, who retired as the agency’s principal deputy assistant administrator for science in 2021.
Holran with EPA said the memos will implement the new office, ensuring “gold-standard science” is used in rulemakings and technical assistance to states.
“Through creating clear and concise processes, EPA will be able to work more closely with the national program offices and transparently communicate the scientific outcomes of the agency’s work to deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans,” the agency spokesperson said.
The other memo in a text reproduction detailed a clearance policy and routing guidelines for OASES. That included a step-by-step guide for “advance notification” where top officials are kept apprised of science that could be highly influential, such as products that could touch on priorities of the EPA administrator or show “significant human health or environmental risks.”
Orme-Zavaleta said the new clearance policy “does not seem to be too dissimilar to what had been done under ORD.”
“I’ll say that the advanced notification process on its face is not necessarily totally unexpected,” Minovi said. “But it is concerning again, when you understand all of these policies are concerning in the context of this agency.”
Now, many of the remaining research office staff have a difficult choice whether to move and stay with the agency.
As for why the agency would try to force them out, the first EPA employee offered this administration appears to hate science and criticism, pointing to the dissent letter. “I believe they are keeping a list of names for that, despite being told we did nothing wrong,” said the employee.
Annie Snider and Miranda Willson contributed to this report.
Contact Kevin Bogardus and Ellie Borst on the encrypted messaging app Signal at KevinBogardus.89 and eborst.64.
Clarification: This story was updated to provide new details on how many employees were sent reassignment notices and location changes, provided by EPA after publication.
