Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Environmental Justice? Not if Project 2025 Has a Say.

News Feed
Friday, November 1, 2024

There’s one line in the sprawling, 900-hundred page document known as Project 2025 that sketches out a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions dollars of federal money meant to help protect some of the most disadvantaged people in the country from pollution and the effects of global warming.  Project 2025, crafted by the conservative-think tank the Heritage Foundation, is widely-acknowledged to be a blueprint for a potential Trump presidency—despite his efforts to distance himself from it. The line proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups” and reviewing “which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.” This almost certainly targets initiatives passed under President Joe Biden that seek to serve communities disproportionately affected by climate change or legacy pollution, also known as environmental justice communities. Project 2025 proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups.” The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated an estimated 1.2 trillion in federal dollars to fund a variety of programs, most of of which were focused on climate change. It represents the biggest investment in climate action taken by the United States to date. On top of this, Biden’s Justice 40 initiative aims to ensure that 40 percent of federal climate-related funding goes towards marginalized communities. A portion of existing funds from the IRA are administered through the Environmental Protection Agency and are meant for advocacy groups, which often partner with state and local governments to help get money to the country’s neediest people. A subset of advocacy groups that receive federal funding are environmental justice groups, which advocate for climate change mitigation and increased access to a pollution-free environment for residents in low-income and BIPOC communities, which are often disproportionately located near sources of pollution. If it followed Project 2025’s proposal, a Trump EPA would almost certainly put an end to such programs. The Heritage Foundation has previously targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public and private institutions, as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this year. (Though it’s worth noting that race is not a factor that the Justice 40 initiative considers when deciding what constitutes a disadvantaged community.) Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff under the Trump administration who worked for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the late Republican Senator James Inhofe, penned the chapter on environmental policy for Project 2025. She says that targeting grant programs to advocacy groups was part of a plan to reassess how the agency spends its dollars. “It’s part of a recommendation to review any pending grants to ensure they go to tangible environmental improvements and not political purposes,” she says. When I asked how would they make the distinction between grants that go to political purposes and grants that support environmental purposes, she didn’t answer. She’s previously accused environmental grantees of being secret Democratic party supporters. In 2023, she told RealClear Investigations, “These groups are political front groups that are simply created to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to Democrat campaigns under the guise of doing something good.”  An EPA spokesperson says that, on the contrary, the agency reviews applicants based on their ability to tackle climate change, environmental justice issues, and bring benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities. “We’re meeting the needs of all Americans,” says Zealan Hoover, senior advisor to the EPA administrator and director of implementation. “Regardless of political, socio-economic, or geographical boundaries.” Access to solar power can be a matter of life or death. Alexia Leclercq, policy director for PODER, an environmental justice organization based in East Austin, TX, saw that with her own eyes a few years ago. “During the winter storm,” she says, referring to 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, which killed 246 people, “the lack of not having power led to people dying.”  Residents across the state were surprised by the cold snap, which plunged the normally balmy temperatures down into the single digits in Austin. The surprise storm overwhelmed the state’s utility companies, who hadn’t planned for this eventuality. As a result, 69 percent of Texans lost power at some point during the week of the storm. People with solar power wouldn’t have needed to rely on the grid to warm their homes. “The lack of not having power led to people dying.”  Unfortunately, solar is still really expensive and inaccessible,” says Leclercq. Her organization was the beneficiary of the IRA’s Solar for All Program to try and help community members in the predominantly Latino East Austin install and use solar power.  Like other smaller environmental justice organizations, PODER didn’t always apply for federal grants because they didn’t have the capacity to deal with federal reporting requirements, says Leclercq. But a new stream of hired contractors from the EPA meant to assist community groups and increase applicants’ knowledge of the granting process was a huge help. “Last year was actually the first time we ever were part of applying for federal funding,” she says.  Leclerq says that while the Biden Administration has tried to rectify past oversight of environmental justice communities by ensuring that they get the funding and grant-assistance they need, the IRA’s grants have been an imperfect fix. She thinks the administration could be doing more to make the details of the program clearer.  “It’s really confusing, to be honest,” Leclercq says. “A lot of people, they’re like, ‘Where do I find the grant? How do I know it’s aligned with my program? How do I know the deadlines?’” She also notes that there’s often “insider info” not widely available about real-life deadlines compared to the publicly listed ones.  Mijin Cha, a professor of environmental studies at University of California, Santa Cruz, also says that the current grant structure is too onerous and inefficient, often routing money through different groups to provide those benefits to underserved people. “The federal government gives money to a third party, and then that third party distributes the money,” says Cha. “Is it not more efficient to just have that be a direct investment?” Despite its flaws, many grantees feel that the Biden administration’s attempt to account for the historic discrimination that saddled communities of color with legacy pollution or made them more vulnerable to climate change is a step in the right direction. The EPA has already funneled $234 million to environmental justice groups to help remedy these issues. Many other groups like PODER are benefiting from the $27 billion dollars allocated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is the umbrella program for Solar for All. As for the allegation that grantees might be political front groups? “It’s unethical and harmful that people are outwardly spreading misinformation and lies regarding Justice40,” Leclercq says. “If they don’t want to fund climate solutions they should just own it.” Even if Trump were to win the election and carry out Project 2025’s plan to eliminate these federal grants, the funding stream wouldn’t stop any time soon. There are many safeguards in the federal granting system, says Hoover. “Our grant agreements are legally binding agreements between the federal government and a grantee with robust legal protections,” he says. Hoover told me that most of the IRA’s funding has already been committed, meaning the federal government is legally obligated to pay it out. But awarded money doesn’t last forever; in the case of most of these programs, it lasts from 3 to 5 years. A Trump president could possibly cut those programs as soon as funding runs out. For the time being, Hoover says that the EPA is focused on making sure to document the IRA’s environmental justice benefits. “We’re confident that the strongest defense for these programs is going to be the tangible impact in these communities and the people who are healthier and safer today than they were four years ago,” he says. 

There’s one line in the sprawling, 900-hundred page document known as Project 2025 that sketches out a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions dollars of federal money meant to help protect some of the most disadvantaged people in the country from pollution and the effects of global warming.  Project 2025, crafted by the conservative-think tank the […]

There’s one line in the sprawling, 900-hundred page document known as Project 2025 that sketches out a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions dollars of federal money meant to help protect some of the most disadvantaged people in the country from pollution and the effects of global warming. 

Project 2025, crafted by the conservative-think tank the Heritage Foundation, is widely-acknowledged to be a blueprint for a potential Trump presidencydespite his efforts to distance himself from it. The line proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups” and reviewing “which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.” This almost certainly targets initiatives passed under President Joe Biden that seek to serve communities disproportionately affected by climate change or legacy pollution, also known as environmental justice communities.

Project 2025 proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups.”

The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated an estimated 1.2 trillion in federal dollars to fund a variety of programs, most of of which were focused on climate change. It represents the biggest investment in climate action taken by the United States to date. On top of this, Biden’s Justice 40 initiative aims to ensure that 40 percent of federal climate-related funding goes towards marginalized communities.

A portion of existing funds from the IRA are administered through the Environmental Protection Agency and are meant for advocacy groups, which often partner with state and local governments to help get money to the country’s neediest people. A subset of advocacy groups that receive federal funding are environmental justice groups, which advocate for climate change mitigation and increased access to a pollution-free environment for residents in low-income and BIPOC communities, which are often disproportionately located near sources of pollution.

If it followed Project 2025’s proposal, a Trump EPA would almost certainly put an end to such programs. The Heritage Foundation has previously targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public and private institutions, as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this year. (Though it’s worth noting that race is not a factor that the Justice 40 initiative considers when deciding what constitutes a disadvantaged community.)

Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff under the Trump administration who worked for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the late Republican Senator James Inhofe, penned the chapter on environmental policy for Project 2025. She says that targeting grant programs to advocacy groups was part of a plan to reassess how the agency spends its dollars. “It’s part of a recommendation to review any pending grants to ensure they go to tangible environmental improvements and not political purposes,” she says. When I asked how would they make the distinction between grants that go to political purposes and grants that support environmental purposes, she didn’t answer.

She’s previously accused environmental grantees of being secret Democratic party supporters. In 2023, she told RealClear Investigations, “These groups are political front groups that are simply created to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to Democrat campaigns under the guise of doing something good.” 

An EPA spokesperson says that, on the contrary, the agency reviews applicants based on their ability to tackle climate change, environmental justice issues, and bring benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities. “We’re meeting the needs of all Americans,” says Zealan Hoover, senior advisor to the EPA administrator and director of implementation. “Regardless of political, socio-economic, or geographical boundaries.”

Access to solar power can be a matter of life or death. Alexia Leclercq, policy director for PODER, an environmental justice organization based in East Austin, TX, saw that with her own eyes a few years ago. “During the winter storm,” she says, referring to 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, which killed 246 people, “the lack of not having power led to people dying.” 

Residents across the state were surprised by the cold snap, which plunged the normally balmy temperatures down into the single digits in Austin. The surprise storm overwhelmed the state’s utility companies, who hadn’t planned for this eventuality. As a result, 69 percent of Texans lost power at some point during the week of the storm. People with solar power wouldn’t have needed to rely on the grid to warm their homes.

“The lack of not having power led to people dying.” 

Unfortunately, solar is still really expensive and inaccessible,” says Leclercq. Her organization was the beneficiary of the IRA’s Solar for All Program to try and help community members in the predominantly Latino East Austin install and use solar power. 

Like other smaller environmental justice organizations, PODER didn’t always apply for federal grants because they didn’t have the capacity to deal with federal reporting requirements, says Leclercq. But a new stream of hired contractors from the EPA meant to assist community groups and increase applicants’ knowledge of the granting process was a huge help. “Last year was actually the first time we ever were part of applying for federal funding,” she says. 

Leclerq says that while the Biden Administration has tried to rectify past oversight of environmental justice communities by ensuring that they get the funding and grant-assistance they need, the IRA’s grants have been an imperfect fix. She thinks the administration could be doing more to make the details of the program clearer. 

“It’s really confusing, to be honest,” Leclercq says. “A lot of people, they’re like, ‘Where do I find the grant? How do I know it’s aligned with my program? How do I know the deadlines?’” She also notes that there’s often “insider info” not widely available about real-life deadlines compared to the publicly listed ones. 

Mijin Cha, a professor of environmental studies at University of California, Santa Cruz, also says that the current grant structure is too onerous and inefficient, often routing money through different groups to provide those benefits to underserved people. “The federal government gives money to a third party, and then that third party distributes the money,” says Cha. “Is it not more efficient to just have that be a direct investment?”

Despite its flaws, many grantees feel that the Biden administration’s attempt to account for the historic discrimination that saddled communities of color with legacy pollution or made them more vulnerable to climate change is a step in the right direction. The EPA has already funneled $234 million to environmental justice groups to help remedy these issues. Many other groups like PODER are benefiting from the $27 billion dollars allocated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is the umbrella program for Solar for All.

As for the allegation that grantees might be political front groups? “It’s unethical and harmful that people are outwardly spreading misinformation and lies regarding Justice40,” Leclercq says. “If they don’t want to fund climate solutions they should just own it.”

Even if Trump were to win the election and carry out Project 2025’s plan to eliminate these federal grants, the funding stream wouldn’t stop any time soon. There are many safeguards in the federal granting system, says Hoover. “Our grant agreements are legally binding agreements between the federal government and a grantee with robust legal protections,” he says.

Hoover told me that most of the IRA’s funding has already been committed, meaning the federal government is legally obligated to pay it out. But awarded money doesn’t last forever; in the case of most of these programs, it lasts from 3 to 5 years. A Trump president could possibly cut those programs as soon as funding runs out.

For the time being, Hoover says that the EPA is focused on making sure to document the IRA’s environmental justice benefits. “We’re confident that the strongest defense for these programs is going to be the tangible impact in these communities and the people who are healthier and safer today than they were four years ago,” he says. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Environmental Agency Denies Petition to Designate Big Hole River as Impaired by Nutrient Pollution

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus, throwing a wrench in environmentalists’ efforts to put the blue-ribbon fishery on a “pollution diet.”Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation contend that excess nutrients are creating regular summertime algal blooms that can stretch for more than a mile, robbing fish and the macroinvertebrate bugs they eat of the oxygen they need to thrive. The groups argue in the petition they sent to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality last month that an impairment designation would direct the agency to identify and work to reduce the river’s pollution sources in an effort to rebalance the river’s aquatic ecosystem.On April 14, about a month after receiving the 32-page petition, DEQ wrote that it “cannot grant” the group’s petition. The agency’s letter doesn’t quibble with the groups’ findings, which were detailed in a five-year data collection effort. Instead, the agency suggested that legislation passed in 2021 has tied its hands. “As a result of Senate Bill 358, passed during the 2021 Legislative Session … DEQ is unable to base nutrient assessment upon the numeric nutrient criteria,” the letter, signed by DEQ Director Sonja Nowakowski, reads. In an April 23 conversation with Montana Free Press, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Executive Director Guy Alsentzer criticized the agency’s decision, arguing that it did not use the best available science and applied “illogical and disingenuous” reasoning in its denial. “EPA already took action and struck down Senate Bill 358 from the 2021 session,” Alsentzer said, referencing federal regulators’ oversight of state laws and rules governing water quality. “Numeric criteria are applicable.”A spokesperson for the EPA confirmed Alsentzer’s assertion, writing in an April 24 email to MTFP that numeric nutrient standards for nitrogen and phosphorus the agency approved a decade ago “remain in effect for Clean Water Act purposes” and will remain so “unless or until the EPA approves the removal of the currently applicable numeric nutrient criteria and approves revised water quality standards.”A DEQ spokesperson did not directly answer MTFP’s questions about what water quality standards DEQ is using to assess Montana waterways and determine whether permittees are complying with state and federal regulations.The agency wrote in an email that no permitted pollution sources under its regulatory oversight are discharging into the Big Hole, suggesting that its enforcement role is limited. The agency also wrote that an impairment designation is not required to implement water quality improvement projects such as creating riparian buffers, improving forest roads, or creating shaded areas. “Watershed partners may begin actively working on nonpoint source pollution reduction projects at any time,” DEQ spokesperson Madison McGeffers wrote to MTFP. “There is nothing standing in the way of starting work on these types of projects to improve water quality. In fact, the Big Hole River Watershed Committee is actively implementing its Watershed Restoration Plan with funds and support from DEQ Nonpoint Source & Wetland Section’s 319 program.”Alsentzer countered that a science-based cleanup plan and greater accountability will benefit the Big Hole regardless of whether nutrients are flowing into the river from a pipe or entering via more diffuse and harder-to-regulate channels.“You can’t get to that if you don’t recognize that you’ve got a problem we need to solve,” he said, adding that an impairment designation “unlocks pass-through funding to the tune of millions of dollars.”Addressing manmade threats to the Big Hole should be a priority for DEQ, given local communities’ economic reliance on a healthy river, he added.“It’s just a real tragic state of affairs when you have a blue-ribbon trout fishery in a very rural county that’s essentially having its livelihood flushed down the drain because we can’t get our agencies to actually implement baseline river protections (and) use science-based standards,” Alsentzer said. “When people try to do the work for the agency and help them, they’re getting told to go pound sand. I think that’s wrong.”Two years ago, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists recorded historically low numbers of brown trout along some stretches of the Big Hole. Anglers and conservationists floated a number of possible contributing factors, ranging from pathogens and drought conditions to angling pressure and unmitigated pollution. Save Wild Trout, a nonprofit formed in 2023 to understand which factors merit further investigation, described the 2023 southwestern Montana fishery “collapse” as a “canary in the coal mine moment.”In response to the 2023 population slump, Gov. Greg Gianforte announced the launch of a multiyear research effort on Jefferson Basin rivers that FWP is coordinating with Montana State University. Narrative Standards For ‘Undesirable Aquatic Life’ DEQ’s letter to Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation leaves open the possibility of a future impairment designation based on narrative water quality standards. After mentioning the 2021 legislation, Nowakowski wrote that the agency reviewed the submitted data “along with other readily available data, in consideration of the state’s established narrative criteria.”The letter goes on to outline the additional material petitioners would need to submit for the agency to evaluate an impairment designation using narrative criteria, which establish that surface waters must be “free from substances” that “create conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life.”In an April 22 letter, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation addressed the petition denial in two parts. First, the groups argued that numeric nutrient standards apply. Second, they resubmitted material — photos, emails, a macroinvertebrate report, and “Aquatic Plant Visual Assessment Forms” — to support an impairment designation under the looser narrative standards. “We encourage DEQ to do the right thing, use all available science to determine the Big Hole River impaired for nutrients, and commit to working with petitioners and other (stakeholders) in addressing the pollution sources undermining this world-class waterway and harming the diverse uses it supports,” the letter says. Alsentzer noted that he has set up a meeting with the EPA to discuss DEQ’s treatment of the petition and its description of applicable water quality standards.The dispute over numeric nutrient standards comes shortly after the Legislature passed another bill seeking to repeal them. Any day now, Gianforte is expected to sign House Bill 664, which bears a striking similarity to 2021’s Senate Bill 358. HB 664 has garnered support from Nowakowski, who described it as a “time travel” bill that will return the state to “individual, site-by-site” regulations in lieu of more broadly applicable numeric standards. This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Supreme Court justices consider reviving industry bid to ax California clean car rule

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating a significant share of cars sold to be electric or hybrid.  Instead, the Supreme Court was considering whether the fuel industry had the authority to bring the lawsuit at all. A lower court determined that the producers, which include numerous biofuel companies and trade groups representing both them and the makers of gasoline, did not have standing to bring the case. Some of the justices were quiet, so it’s difficult to predict what the ultimate outcome of the case will be. However, others appeared critical of the federal government and California’s arguments that the fuel producers do not have the right to bring a suit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in particular noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself did not initially try to have the case tossed on that basis.  “Isn't that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there's even — even a hint of a question about it,” Kavanaugh said.  The fuel producers argued that while it was technically the auto industry that was being regulated, the market was being “tilted” against them as well by California’s rule, which was also adopted by other states. The EPA and California have argued that the fuel producers are arguing on the basis of outdated facts and a market that has shifted since the rule was first approved by the EPA in 2013.  The EPA needs to grant approval to California to issue such rules. The approval was revoked by the Trump administration and later reinstated in the Biden administration.  If the justices revive the currently dismissed case, lower courts would then have to decide whether to uphold the California rule — though the underlying case could eventually make its way to the high court as well.  Meanwhile, California has since passed subsequent standards that go even further — banning the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. That rule was approved by the Biden administration — though Congress may try to repeal it.

EPA fires or reassigns hundreds of staffers

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

EPA firing 280 staffers who fought pollution in overburdened neighborhoods

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its efforts to cut these programs — including its previous closure of environmental justice offices — as part of a push to end diversity programming in the government. Supporters of the agency's environmental justice work have pointed out that Black communities face particularly high pollution levels and that the programs also help white Americans, especially if they are poor.  “EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency,” an EPA spokesperson said in a written statement.   “Today, EPA notified diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice employees that EPA will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” the spokesperson said. “The agency also notified certain statutory and mission essential employees that they are being reassigned to other offices through the ‘transfer of function’ procedure also outlined in [the Office of Personnel Management’s] Handbook and federal regulations” The firings will be effective July 31, according to E&E News, which first reported that they were occurring. The news comes as the Trump administration has broadly sought to cut the federal workforce. The administration has previously indicated that it planned to cut 65 percent of the EPA’s overall budget. It’s not clear how much of this will be staff, though according to a plan reviewed by Democrat House staff, the EPA is considering the termination of as many as about 1,100 employees from its scientific research arm.  Meanwhile, as part of their reductions in force, other agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs have fired tens of thousands of staffers. The EPA is smaller than these agencies, with a total of more than 15,000 employees as of January.  Nearly 170 environmental justice staffers were previously placed on paid leave while the agency was “in the process of evaluating new structure and organization.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.