Mira Kemppainen / CC0
On January 23, Donald Trump signed an executive order implementing a hiring freeze across the federal government until a plan is implemented to reduce staff nationwide "through attrition." As one might expect from such an ill-conceived, overbroad directive, many critical jobs were caught up in the chaos.
New documents demonstrate the blunt effect of this order at the Environmental Protection Agency, defenders of our health and environment. For the last few months, the EPA was prohibited from filling more than 350 open positions, according to a response to the Sierra Club's Freedom of Information Act request.
These positions included highly-skilled workers like scientists, engineers, policy experts, and criminal investigators. With the hiring freeze now being replaced by a new directive requiring agencies to align their staff with the president's proposed budget, it remains an open question how these jobs will fare as the EPA faces a potential 31 percent cut.
The figures reported by the EPA are minimums. The true number of EPA jobs held back by the administration is likely to be dozens -- even hundreds -- more than the 351 being reported.
January's executive order not only blocked any open positions at the time, it also prevented any new positions from being created -- so factor in the high rate of turnover as federal employees flee the Trump administration (see the public statements from the EPA's former senior environmental justice advisor and climate change advisor). In addition, several offices only disclosed posts that had already selected final candidates (140 people fit this category).
Who's watching out for us?
The EPA monitors pollutants in the air, water, and soil and ensures that the environment is restored to healthful levels. But while the EPA's mission is broadly popular, big polluters have targeted the agency for years.
They may have gotten their wish in this administration. During the freeze, dozens of positions that could create safeguards were stuck in limbo. Even more worrisome were the six criminal investigators and four legal staff that couldn't hold corporations accountable for illegal pollution. Strong standards aren't worth much when there's nobody around to enforce them...
The freeze and other EPA policies put in place by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have sent a clear message to dirty corporations: we'll look the other way while you pollute. But it's only going to be so long before another PR disaster -- like last year's Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal -- provides a stark reminder of the need to take the law seriously.
The anti-science presidency
Government-backed research is responsible for many of the products and technical advances we enjoy today. The EPA is especially oriented around science, where trained individuals monitor drinking water, oversee toxic waste cleanup, and evaluate major projects for their environmental impact.
Going by job title alone, approximately one-third (112) of the held-up positions were scientists or engineers. The EPA employs biologists, chemists, geologists, health physicists, industrial hygienists, and toxicologists, among others.
These posts are crucial to understanding what types of pollutants are present, where they are coming from, how they are affecting people and wildlife, and how to return human and natural ecosystems to a healthful state. Every decision by the agency -- from permit approvals to regulations -- must be supported by extensive research.
Science is the backbone of the EPA's work, something Pruitt does not seem to understand.
Pruitt was widely ridiculed last month for minimizing carbon dioxide's role in climate change, a statement that earned him a Sierra Club lawsuit for violating his own agency's Scientific Integrity Act. Proposed budget cuts would have a far greater impact than Pruitt's worrisome words.
As reported by Science, the Trump administration wants to cut the EPA's Office of Research and Development (currently down 21% from 2004 levels) an additional 40 percent. One senior EPA official was quoted claiming this drastic reduction would cause the office to "implode." Preliminary budget figures would slash research on air, water, energy, climate change, chemical safety, and healthy communities by a combined $174 million.
Among the programs affected is the elimination of $50 million in grants to universities. These grants are substantial sources of revenue for institutions of higher learning and the surrounding college towns. Managers of contracts and grants -- both of which the agency has become highly dependent upon following a staff reduction of 12 percent since 2010 -- comprised 49 of the EPA's frozen positions.
Pruitt's voodoo economics
In his first major address to EPA employees, Pruitt said, "I believe that we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs, and pro-environment. We don’t have to choose between the two." He later wrote in a USA Today op-ed that the United States has seen technological leaps improve both air quality and the GDP.
This is all true, but of course, Pruitt is engaging in a form of oratory trickery. For all his talk of win-win scenarios, Pruitt has drawn all the wrong conclusions on how the EPA can boost both the environment and the economy. Instead of backing clean energy (which already employs more people than fossil fuels) or energy efficiency and pollution standards (which help drive industrial innovation), Pruitt has sought to restrain the agency and reverse sensible safeguards.
One would think, however, that Pruitt would look more kindly upon those workers who measure the economic impact of EPA rules. Both economists and financial analysts were caught up in the current freeze. EPA's Region 7 Office, in the Great Plains, was seeking workforce and community planners to help the local economy.
It remains to be seen how the EPA will treat these employees. Budget documents focus on the broader programs for now, so it is hard to suss out how the EPA's economic advisors will be affected.
One concern is that if the agency fires these workers, it will make the government even more dependent on industry-backed financial studies. Just like health research, economic research must be conducted independently of political concerns to avoid tainting the decisionmaking process.
The new abnormal
Even though the hiring freeze has been lifted, there is little to rejoice. Trump has directed the Office of Management and Budget to work with agencies on a vast restructuring -- with the assumption of staff reduction -- in order to align with his proposed budget. There are at least two major problems with this approach.
First is that Trump's budget has not passed Congress; indeed, members of Congress in both parties have objected to many of the cuts. Forcing agencies to respect the budget as if it were already law is the executive branch preempting the legislative.
Second, Trump's budget is a disaster. It's an extension of the failed, anti-environmental policies that have besieged the EPA since Inauguration Day. Reorganizing the government to make it more efficient is one thing; cutting it in order to undermine laws the president wishes didn't exist is another.
The administration is taking feedback from the public on its restructuring plan. You can weigh in from now until June 12 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-the-executive-branch.