Ethics guardrails around President Donald Trump’s chemical appointees at EPA are expiring as the agency plows ahead on his deregulatory agenda.
“Cooling off” or recusal periods — typically the year after political officials enter government service and are barred from talking to their former clients — for top officials in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention began ending in January. More will lapse later this summer and fall, a review of ethics documents obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News shows.
So goes one of the few restrictions on leadership within EPA’s chemicals office, which members of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement have slammed as too close to the industry insiders they are meant to regulate.
“We need to stop pretending these rules are adequate, and address the fact that people who have been lobbying to expose people to more known carcinogens should not be the ones overseeing regulations designed to safeguard public health,” said Alexandra Muñoz, an independent toxicologist and MAHA activist. “No impartiality determination can change that fundamental conflict.”
Richard Painter, once the chief White House ethics lawyer for former President George W. Bush, said he advised appointees then to avoid ex-employers during their time in government, long after their recusal period ended.
“We did not like that, and it just looks really sleazy,” Painter said. “And so here we are. This is indicative of the fact that we’re sort of scaling back on the ethics rules and compliance.”
In response to questions for this story, EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said every policy advanced by the agency delivers results “for all Americans,” including safeguarding the environment “and improving health and quality of life nationwide.”
“That includes advancing the President’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, which is grounded in commonsense policy and gold-standard science, with input from doctors, scientists, parents, farmers and ranchers across this country,” Hirsch said.
Under federal law, appointees are prohibited from participating in “a particular matter” involving former employers or clients during their cooling-off period, according to EPA records released under the Freedom of Information Act. That means they shouldn’t be included on emails, asked to attend meetings or make recommendations on matters affecting past affiliations.
EPA also shared a statement from Justina Fugh, director of the agency’s Ethics Office.
“Examples of specific party matters at EPA include permits, registrations, contracts, grants, litigations, enforcement actions, or investigations,” Fugh said. “To be clear, this federal ethical obligation to recuse does not extend to particular matters of general applicability, such as rulemaking, general issues, or policy matters.”
Painter, now a University of Minnesota law professor, said “it’s amazing” that despite ethics rules, appointees “already have extraordinary influence over the content of regulations.”
“The people allowed to come into the government in large numbers from regulated industry, on Day One, deregulate the industry,” he added.
Cooling-off periods for Nancy Beck, principal deputy assistant administrator in EPA’s chemicals office, wrapped up throughout last year for almost three dozen ex-clients, including the American Petroleum Institute, Olin Corp., the Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and Syngenta. Her last one — for her former employer, law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth — ended Jan. 19, according to her recusal statement last June.
Beck’s updated recusal, dated Jan. 22, removes her “ethics obligations” regarding former employers and clients “under the federal impartiality regulations that have now expired.”
Lynn Dekleva’s recusal with her once-employer, the American Chemistry Council, lasted until Jan. 16. She is the deputy assistant administrator for the chemicals program and, like Beck, served at EPA during the first Trump administration.
Delaney Marsco, director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said once an official’s cooling-off period ends, they can interact with their former employer and participate in matters involving that entity.
“That doesn’t always mean you should do those things,” Marsco said. “You’re still bound by the broader ethics regulations and the standards of conduct, and you have to avoid the appearance of any impropriety.”
EPA’s statement didn’t address a question on whether Beck and Dekleva will still refrain from interacting with past employers going forward at the agency.
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for watchdog group Public Citizen, noted Trump hasn’t restored his ethics pledge for appointees from his first term, when the cooling-off period lasted two years, not one. Instead, the president is relying on “the old ineffectual” conflict-of-interest laws this time.
“There is not much left of a revolving door policy under the second Trump administration,” Holman said. “After one year, the officials are now free to meet with their former employers or clients with respect to lobbying and policymaking.”
More aides with industry ties
Recusal periods for other political appointees in EPA’s chemicals office will lapse later this year.
Kyle Kunkler, deputy assistant administrator for pesticides, has to recuse from the American Soybean Association, his ex-employer, until June 27, his ethics document indicated.
Kirby Tyndall is a senior adviser in the chemicals program. Cooling-off periods for more than 30 of her ex-clients — such as Eastman Chemical, Exxon Mobil and the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association — started finishing in November last year, according to her recusal statements. Her final one for her past employer, consulting firm GSI Environmental, is slated to end Sept. 9.
Tyndall and her spouse have also been given a certificate of divestiture so they can sell assets to comply with ethics law. Those include shares in Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Marathon Petroleum.
Douglas Troutman, the head of EPA’s chemicals office, has the longest wait among his fellow appointees. The assistant administrator must keep his distance from the American Cleaning Institute, his former employer, until Sept. 10, 2027, his recusal statement said.
Federal law requires Troutman’s cooling-off period to last two years, not one, because he received a bonus payment from ACI. The cleaning products trade group gave Troutman half of his retention bonus, $20,000, before he left for EPA, according to his financial disclosure report.
Troutman, as a Senate-confirmed appointee, has since signed the compliance certification for his ethics agreement.
Waivers handed out ‘like candy on Halloween’
Recusal periods haven’t been without exceptions. In some cases, EPA has allowed officials to work on issues they once handled for former clients.
Beck has received eight impartiality determinations, which are authorizations granted by ethics officials so individuals can take part in litigation, rulemakings and other work involving past clients.
“Because I conclude that the interest of the United States Government in your participation outweighs any concerns about your impartiality, I am authorizing you to participate fully in this specific party matter,” read one of Beck’s determinations.
Marsco of the Campaign Legal Center said the impartiality determinations are “largely a good thing.”
“This is exactly what we want people to be doing,” Marsco said. “We want people to be contacting their ethics officials about possible conflicts of interest. We want the ethics officials to be acting in a way where they are putting their advice in writing and giving their reasoning behind it.”
Others had a different assessment. Kyla Bennett, science policy director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the ethics rules “were put there for a reason” and “should be mandatory.”
“The ethics office hands out these waivers like candy on Halloween,” Bennett said. “The Trump administration is not playing by the rules, and the ethics office is allowing them to do that, to cheat, and it is appalling.”
Beck’s determinations authorized her to dig into legal discussions concerning Toxic Substances Control Act rules for methylene chloride; trichloroethylene, twice; the Toxics Release Inventory; perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride, also twice; data reporting requirements; as well as risk evaluations for certain phthalates.
Many of Beck’s former clients are involved in litigation challenging those same regulations. Chemical manufacturer Olin, for example, sued EPA over at least three of those rules: trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride.
Beck’s hand in one particular rule — the framework for existing chemical reviews, which lays the foundation for major chemical regulations under TSCA — piqued the attention of high-profile leaders in the MAHA movement, who urged followers to comment on the proposed changes to stop EPA from “letting Big Chemical Rewrite the Rules.”
The proposed rule received more than 3,000 comments. The Biden administration’s version of the framework got 369 comments. It has yet to be finalized.
Meanwhile, Dekleva got seven impartiality determinations from EPA. Those were so she could work on methylene chloride; trichloroethylene, twice; the TRI; perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride; asbestos; as well as 1,3-butadiene.
“The bottom line is those authorizations should be very rare,” Painter said. Yet the Trump administration has tried to get chemical insiders placed at EPA to loosen up regulations, he added.
“Then, they’re going to hand out these waivers,” Painter said. “We’re just going to get more of them.”
Often on the same date, EPA issued both Beck and Dekleva authorizations to work on the same chemical rules.
Democrats probing EPA ethics
The flexibility to participate in general matters has allowed Kunkler to work on dicamba, a MAHA-targeted weedkiller he tracked as a lobbyist for the American Soybean Association without an impartiality determination.
He was the “lead from OCSPP on this issue” as of July 10 last year, Associate Deputy Administrator Travis Voyles said in an email released under FOIA.
Muñoz and other MAHA advocates have dubbed this as “proof” that EPA is still captured by corporate interests despite the White House’s first MAHA Commission report rebuking industry influence in government science.
This “great hypocrisy” has garnered attention from lawmakers such as Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who sent a letter to EPA on Thursday inquiring about ethics obligations for OCSPP officials.
Hirsch, the EPA spokesperson, said E&E News’ reporting shows the agency’s leadership “has followed the letter of the law without exception.”
“Our team is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards while implementing President Trump’s vision for a healthier, stronger America,” Hirsch said. “Unlike the previous administration’s backroom dealings, the Trump EPA holds itself accountable to the Constitution, the law and the American people.”
Holman with Public Citizen said ethics restrictions have not meant much during Trump’s second term, where misconduct is neither monitored nor enforced.
“When, and if, the press reveals a violation, there may be an embarrassing moment of pause under the Trump administration,” Holman said. “But no enforcement actions have yet been taken in any of the numerous conflict-of-interest scandals.”
Madi Alexander contributed to this report.
Contact these reporters on Signal at KevinBogardus.89 and eborst.64.
