On Monday, a collective of Environmental Protection Agency staff expressed dissent regarding the agency’s policies during the Trump administration, stating it “undermines the EPA’s mission to safeguard human health and the environment.”

More than 170 EPA employees have cited documents and signed anonymously due to concerns of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, former editor-in-chief of Science Magazine. This group includes over 70 Nobel Prize winners and other non-EPA scientists and academics.

The letter marks a rare public critique from agency employees who risk facing backlash for voicing their disagreement with the federal administration’s support for climate, environment, and health sciences. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health experienced a similar situation in early June.

“Since its inception in 1970, the EPA has fulfilled its mission by utilizing science, funding, and professional staff to serve Americans. We oppose the current administration’s emphasis on harmful deregulation, misrepresentation of past EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”

A spokesperson for the agency did not provide an immediate comment when contacted on Monday.

Employees Hope for a Return to EPA’s Core Mission

“I’m genuinely upset. This agency was a beacon for me in my youth. We aren’t upholding the ideals of this agency under the current administration, and we truly desire that,” stated Amelia Herzberg, an EPA environmental protection specialist who is currently on administrative leave from the Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Bureau.

Herzberg’s role focused on protecting the most vulnerable populations impacted by contamination. This includes pregnant and nursing individuals, children and infants, the elderly, those with chronic health conditions, and communities exposed to greater contamination levels. “This shouldn’t be controversial, but it is in today’s political climate,” she remarked.

“Americans should have access to clean water and air without the risk of poisoning. If not, our government has failed,” she asserted.

Berg, who led the National Institute of Integrated Medical Sciences at the NIH from 2003 to 2011, emphasized that the dissent is not driven by partisan agendas but aims to guide employees back to the foundational mission of the EPA, which is fundamentally about “breathing clean air and drinking safe water.”

The letter articulated five primary concerns of EPA employees: disregarding scientific consensus for polluter benefit, reversing progress in vulnerable U.S. communities, dismantling the Research and Development Bureau, and fostering a culture of fear that forces staff to choose between their livelihoods and well-being.

EPA’s Funding Cuts and Regulatory Reversals

Under the administration of Lee Zeldin, the EPA has announced cuts to funding for environmental improvements in minority communities and plans to roll back federal regulations. Air pollution in national parks and tribal lands is also under scrutiny, along with revisiting bans on certain asbestos types and proposed rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas power plants.

Zeldin has initiated a reorganization of EPA’s R&D Office as part of his initiative to reduce budgets and impede research on climate change and environmental justice. Furthermore, he is poised to retract pollution regulations that could reportedly save 30,000 lives and yield $275 billion annually.

“People will die,” stated Carol Grader, a Nobel Prize laureate and professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She referenced last week’s East Coast heatwave as evidence of the real effects of climate change. “If there are no scientists at the EPA, more lives will be lost due to ignorance about our work and its impact on air quality,” she added.

Berg highlighted the significance of the objection declarations from both NIH and EPA employees. These actions reflect a need for consideration about the future of research funding.

When discussing her concerns about potential repercussions, Grader noted that she “experiences all the implications” and frequently engages with graduate students anxious about pursuing scientific careers amidst funding cuts.

She concluded, “If we neglect to support the next generation of scientists, it will lead to long-term consequences: ‘It’s a decades-long issue.’