3 sources·Politics

EPA Plans Major Cuts to Scientific Workforce, Raising Concerns Over Environmental Protection

The EPA plans to eliminate its research office, risking the jobs of over 1,000 scientists, prompting bipartisan criticism and concerns over public health safeguards.

The distribution of story sources: left-leaning (blue), center (light gray), and right-leaning (red).
Reliable
The underlying sources consistently report facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
Balanced
The underlying sources are either a balanced mix of left and right or primarily centrist.
Subscribe to unlock this story

We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $3/month or $30/year, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!

Get Started
  1. EPA weighs elimination of research office

    The elimination of the agency’s science branch would significantly undermine its ability to protect public health.

    EPA weighs elimination of research office

    The HillThe Hill·1M
    Reliable
    This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
    ·
    Center
    This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
  2. EPA plans to cut scientific research, more than 1,000 employees could be fired

    The planned layoffs, cast by the Trump administration as part of a broader push to shrink the size of the federal government and make it more efficient, were assailed by critics as a massive dismantling of the EPA’s longstanding mission to protect public health and the environment.

    EPA plans to cut scientific research, more than 1,000 employees could be fired

    PBS NewsHourPBS NewsHour·1M
    Reliable
    This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
    ·
    Leans Left
    This outlet slightly leans left.
  3. EPA plans to cut scientific research program, could fire more than 1,000 employees

    The planned layoffs, cast by the Trump administration as part of a broader push to shrink the size of the federal government and make it more efficient, were assailed by critics as a massive dismantling of the EPA’s longstanding mission to protect public health and the environment.

    EPA plans to cut scientific research program, could fire more than 1,000 employees

    Associated PressAssociated Press·1M
    Reliable
    This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
    ·
    Center
    This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
  1. The Hill
  2. PBS NewsHour
  3. Associated Press
Updated: Mar 18th, 2025, 10:38 PM ET

Summary

A summary of the key points of this story verified across multiple sources.

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to eliminate its Office of Research and Development, potentially laying off over 1,000 scientists, significantly impacting public health protections and environmental research. Critics argue this move undermines the EPA's mission, while agency officials state that no final decisions have been made. The proposal reflects broader budget cuts and a shift in priorities under the Trump administration, raising alarms over the potential impacts on scientific integrity and environmental regulation.

Perspectives

Compare opinions on this story from liberal (Left), conservative (Right) or center-leaning news organizations.

  • The EPA plans to significantly reduce its scientific research office, potentially laying off more than 1,000 scientists as part of a broader effort to shrink the federal government and improve efficiency.

  • Critics are deeply concerned that dismantling the EPA's research capabilities will hinder its ability to protect public health and the environment, raising legal and ethical implications regarding the use of science in policymaking.

  • While the EPA insists that no final decisions have been made, the proposal has sparked debate about the agency's future oversight and the prioritization of environmental health in government regulations.

FAQs

A list of follow-up questions readers often ask about this story.