Washington, D.C. — The Environmental Protection Agency has placed 139 employees on administrative leave after they expressed dissent over the agency’s recent policy direction, which they claim undermines its mission to safeguard public health and the environment. This move has raised concerns about the administration’s stance on scientific integrity and employee rights.
The dissenting employees submitted a letter that openly criticized current EPA policies, indicating they believe these decisions have drifted away from the agency’s foundational goals. Their appeal highlights significant fears regarding diminishing support for climate and environmental science. Approximately 170 employees signed the declaration, with an additional 100 opting for anonymity due to concerns of potential retaliation.
In an official statement regarding the decision, the EPA emphasized a strict “zero-tolerance policy” towards those it views as attempting to sabotage the administration’s goals. Employees were informed that their leave is a temporary measure for two weeks while an administrative review is conducted. Notably, the agency reassured staff that this leave does not constitute disciplinary action.
This event mirrors a similar protest from employees at the National Institutes of Health earlier this year, when nearly 100 staff members signed a declaration condemning administration policies that they believe compromise the NIH’s mission and public health. Unlike the EPA employees, however, those at NIH have yet to face repercussions for their actions, according to Jenna Norton, a lead organizer of their dissent.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been under scrutiny for several controversial initiatives, including significant budget cuts aimed at environmental improvements, particularly in disadvantaged communities. The agency is also seeking to loosen regulations designed to reduce air pollution in national parks and to relax restrictions on harmful substances such as asbestos. Critics argue that these actions could have dire consequences for public health and safety.
In addition, the EPA’s current approach includes reversing standards set to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a move criticized for potentially leading to thousands of additional deaths annually due to compromised air quality. The implications of these policy shifts are profound, as they are believed to threaten both environmental justice and the agency’s core mission.
Zeldin’s plans have coincided with broader attempts to reshape the EPA’s research priorities, aligning them more closely with the current administration’s agenda. This has led to fears that essential environmental studies and climate change research may become sidelined.
In response to the public dissent, the EPA maintained that policy changes are grounded in thorough discussions with agency professionals. It asserted that the vast majority of staff are committed to the agency’s work and the integrity of environmental science.
As this situation unfolds, the impact on both the agency and environmental policy at large remains uncertain. The withdrawal of support from within an organization that has historically championed public health and environmental protection raises critical questions about the future direction of U.S. environmental governance.