At EPA, Consequences of Trump’s Second Term Are Already Unfolding
A major loss of personnel—whether due to retirement, resignation, or termination—has the potential to severely impact essential functions at the EPA.
TroibNews 
As President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration approaches, the mood among many employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of uncertainty, with some considering leaving rather than bracing for potential upheaval.
A significant portion of the agency's 16,000 staff members previously served during Trump's first term, a time that left them feeling marginalized and scrutinized by political leadership. With Trump signaling a more aggressive stance in his second term, aimed at combating what he describes as the “deep state,” many EPA employees are weighing their options for departure.
The potential impact of a mass staff exodus, whether through retirements, resignations, or terminations, could be detrimental to vital EPA operations. While the agency tackles contentious issues like climate change, much of its daily work focuses on matters with bipartisan support, such as ensuring safe air and water quality, remediating contaminated lands, and responding to environmental disasters.
Maintaining this essential work relies on a robust base of scientific and institutional expertise, which could suffer if the agency experiences substantial personnel losses.
“Staffers are calling me day and night,” remarked Matthew Tejada, who led environmental justice efforts at the EPA for a decade before becoming the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s environmental health program in 2023. “I think that the EPA, in 12 to 24 months, is a shadow of the agency that we know.”
Former Representative Lee Zeldin has been selected to lead the agency but has not elaborated publicly on his plans for staffing or funding. In a Fox News interview after his appointment, Zeldin spoke about the need to "unleash economic prosperity through the EPA" and to “advance America-first policies," while also claiming that Trump “cares about conserving the environment.”
Transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated, “The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver.”
Signals from Trump and his supporters indicate an aggressive strategy to confront the so-called deep state, the civil-service employees they believe hampered them in his first term.
Russell Vought has been reappointed to the White House Office of Management and Budget, a position he previously held. Vought has expressed intentions to decrease EPA funding, suggesting that the agency "can't do all of the rules against our energy industry."
Vought was recorded during a training session outlining his intentions regarding EPA and federal employees: “We want to put them in trauma.” This recording was made public by ProPublica.
Many tactics from the initial Trump administration that aimed to reduce or impede the federal workforce are expected to be reinvigorated. This includes the consideration of labeling staff involved in policymaking as “Schedule F,” which would categorize them as at-will employees, and potentially relocating the agency's headquarters from Washington, D.C.
“I think the staff at EPA are in a state of shock. Not because there’s an effort to downsize EPA, but because there’s an effort to smash EPA and to politicize the civil service in a way we’ve never seen before,” said Tim Whitehouse, a former EPA enforcement attorney and current leader of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
It remains uncertain how significant of an exodus the agency might experience. For many employees, finding new positions could prove challenging, especially for those with specialized skills or legal conflicts that might hinder their ability to litigate against their former agency promptly.
Environmental organizations are preparing to confront the incoming Trump administration. Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, noted that their careers page received an influx of visits immediately following the election, prompting the group to create a new tool for prospective applicants to submit their information even in the absence of openings. However, the environmental sector can only create a limited number of jobs.
According to agency spokesperson Remmington Belford, approximately 20% of the EPA's permanent workforce is eligible for retirement, with an additional 13% becoming eligible within five years. These figures raise concerns about a “brain drain” if experienced personnel suddenly depart.
While Belford could not confirm if retirements have surged since the election, Nicole Cantello, president of AFGE Local 704, which represents around a thousand EPA workers in the Midwest, mentioned a noticeable increase in abrupt retirement announcements among senior leaders following the election.
Typically, retirements are planned months in advance for a smooth transition; however, the recent departures have occurred within weeks of their announcements, with none overtly attributing the decisions to the election, according to Cantello. She attributed the surge in retirements to what she described as micromanagement during Trump’s previous term, which left employees feeling ignored and hindered in their ability to serve the public.
Cantello recounted an instance regarding troubling air monitor results in a community, stating that under previous administrations, the agency would have promptly reported such findings. Instead, she noted, “we had to have a very long discussion about whether or not we were going to put that result up on the website," a delay she had never experienced before.
Cathy Stepp, who served as the Midwest regional administrator under Trump, defended her tactics as necessary for well-informed decision-making.
“When I needed more details on an issue it was to CLEAR unnecessary delays and logjams,” Stepp, who currently works as the city manager for Branson, Missouri, wrote in an email. “The overwhelming majority of our staff appreciated my taking the time to fully understand all sides of an issue, instead of making knee-jerk, uninformed decisions.”
The potential loss of expertise could profoundly affect the EPA’s scientific and research capacities — areas that sparked significant controversy during Trump's first term when officials with ties to the chemical industry were assigned to key scientific roles. During that period, the EPA faced numerous allegations of scientific interference, particularly regarding research involving harmful substances like PFAS and formaldehyde.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development has decreased from a peak of 1,900 employees to roughly 1,500, and further reductions could severely undermine the agency's ability to deliver critical knowledge, as expressed by Chris Frey, a former assistant administrator for the research office.
“If there would be attrition of ORD scientific staff, even just a few people leaving, it could significantly degrade ORD’s capability in a given scientific area,” warned Frey, who departed the EPA in September to return to North Carolina State University.
The agency relies on sophisticated scientific processes for various programs, such as the Integrated Risk Information System and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which involve synthesizing extensive scientific research. Findings from these programs inform some of the most significant regulations the agency enforces and are frequently challenged by industry interests and their political allies.
If staff begin to leave in larger numbers, one external scientific advisor to the EPA cautioned that legislative action may not be necessary for the agency's capacity to diminish.
“I think sort of hollowing out the expertise is a concern,” said the anonymous advisory board member, allowing for candid discussion.
State environmental agencies are bracing for a potential reduction in the federal workforce and are advocating for increased federal funding to compensate for any shortcomings that may arise. EPA has delegated authority to most states for key federal programs managing water and air pollution, but federal funding for State and Tribal Assistance Grants has remained relatively stable in recent years. As this funding represents a substantial portion of the EPA’s budget, it is often a target for cuts in Republican proposals.
“The states are very concerned about the funding to hire the workforce and to run the delegated programs — the basics of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,” Ben Grumbles, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, noted. “It’s going to be an increasing concern if the federal agencies like EPA are dramatically downsized and Congress is not providing the resources.”
Meanwhile, environmental groups are preparing for potential changes at the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. This office has historically been a target for GOP administrations and was restructured during Ronald Reagan’s first term, although it was later reestablished under the Clinton administration.
During Trump’s initial term, there were rumors that political leaders would try to dissolve the centralized office. Eric Schaeffer, who previously led the Office of Civil Enforcement and later founded the watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project, criticized Trump allies who call for reduced enforcement actions or complete cessation.
“I think they have a very primitive kind of ‘ticket writing’ concept of enforcement,” Schaeffer remarked. He likened the complexity of environmental investigations to those conducted by police officers, emphasizing the need for skilled personnel adept at monitoring and forensic work.
Outside organizations are closely monitoring whether the second Trump administration will attempt to reorganize the enforcement office. Additionally, there is concern that any enforcement personnel could be redirected to investigate groups that have received funding via the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act programs.
Sankar from Earthjustice expressed readiness to support organizations that might be inundated with document requests and other investigative demands from the incoming administration.
“The Trump administration, one of its stated priorities is to eliminate support for a clean energy transition and therefore we fully expect that they will be looking for ways to interfere with funding and activities by companies and groups trying to do that work, and we are preparing to help support them,” he concluded.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
A significant portion of the agency's 16,000 staff members previously served during Trump's first term, a time that left them feeling marginalized and scrutinized by political leadership. With Trump signaling a more aggressive stance in his second term, aimed at combating what he describes as the “deep state,” many EPA employees are weighing their options for departure.
The potential impact of a mass staff exodus, whether through retirements, resignations, or terminations, could be detrimental to vital EPA operations. While the agency tackles contentious issues like climate change, much of its daily work focuses on matters with bipartisan support, such as ensuring safe air and water quality, remediating contaminated lands, and responding to environmental disasters.
Maintaining this essential work relies on a robust base of scientific and institutional expertise, which could suffer if the agency experiences substantial personnel losses.
“Staffers are calling me day and night,” remarked Matthew Tejada, who led environmental justice efforts at the EPA for a decade before becoming the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s environmental health program in 2023. “I think that the EPA, in 12 to 24 months, is a shadow of the agency that we know.”
Former Representative Lee Zeldin has been selected to lead the agency but has not elaborated publicly on his plans for staffing or funding. In a Fox News interview after his appointment, Zeldin spoke about the need to "unleash economic prosperity through the EPA" and to “advance America-first policies," while also claiming that Trump “cares about conserving the environment.”
Transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated, “The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver.”
Signals from Trump and his supporters indicate an aggressive strategy to confront the so-called deep state, the civil-service employees they believe hampered them in his first term.
Russell Vought has been reappointed to the White House Office of Management and Budget, a position he previously held. Vought has expressed intentions to decrease EPA funding, suggesting that the agency "can't do all of the rules against our energy industry."
Vought was recorded during a training session outlining his intentions regarding EPA and federal employees: “We want to put them in trauma.” This recording was made public by ProPublica.
Many tactics from the initial Trump administration that aimed to reduce or impede the federal workforce are expected to be reinvigorated. This includes the consideration of labeling staff involved in policymaking as “Schedule F,” which would categorize them as at-will employees, and potentially relocating the agency's headquarters from Washington, D.C.
“I think the staff at EPA are in a state of shock. Not because there’s an effort to downsize EPA, but because there’s an effort to smash EPA and to politicize the civil service in a way we’ve never seen before,” said Tim Whitehouse, a former EPA enforcement attorney and current leader of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
It remains uncertain how significant of an exodus the agency might experience. For many employees, finding new positions could prove challenging, especially for those with specialized skills or legal conflicts that might hinder their ability to litigate against their former agency promptly.
Environmental organizations are preparing to confront the incoming Trump administration. Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, noted that their careers page received an influx of visits immediately following the election, prompting the group to create a new tool for prospective applicants to submit their information even in the absence of openings. However, the environmental sector can only create a limited number of jobs.
According to agency spokesperson Remmington Belford, approximately 20% of the EPA's permanent workforce is eligible for retirement, with an additional 13% becoming eligible within five years. These figures raise concerns about a “brain drain” if experienced personnel suddenly depart.
While Belford could not confirm if retirements have surged since the election, Nicole Cantello, president of AFGE Local 704, which represents around a thousand EPA workers in the Midwest, mentioned a noticeable increase in abrupt retirement announcements among senior leaders following the election.
Typically, retirements are planned months in advance for a smooth transition; however, the recent departures have occurred within weeks of their announcements, with none overtly attributing the decisions to the election, according to Cantello. She attributed the surge in retirements to what she described as micromanagement during Trump’s previous term, which left employees feeling ignored and hindered in their ability to serve the public.
Cantello recounted an instance regarding troubling air monitor results in a community, stating that under previous administrations, the agency would have promptly reported such findings. Instead, she noted, “we had to have a very long discussion about whether or not we were going to put that result up on the website," a delay she had never experienced before.
Cathy Stepp, who served as the Midwest regional administrator under Trump, defended her tactics as necessary for well-informed decision-making.
“When I needed more details on an issue it was to CLEAR unnecessary delays and logjams,” Stepp, who currently works as the city manager for Branson, Missouri, wrote in an email. “The overwhelming majority of our staff appreciated my taking the time to fully understand all sides of an issue, instead of making knee-jerk, uninformed decisions.”
The potential loss of expertise could profoundly affect the EPA’s scientific and research capacities — areas that sparked significant controversy during Trump's first term when officials with ties to the chemical industry were assigned to key scientific roles. During that period, the EPA faced numerous allegations of scientific interference, particularly regarding research involving harmful substances like PFAS and formaldehyde.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development has decreased from a peak of 1,900 employees to roughly 1,500, and further reductions could severely undermine the agency's ability to deliver critical knowledge, as expressed by Chris Frey, a former assistant administrator for the research office.
“If there would be attrition of ORD scientific staff, even just a few people leaving, it could significantly degrade ORD’s capability in a given scientific area,” warned Frey, who departed the EPA in September to return to North Carolina State University.
The agency relies on sophisticated scientific processes for various programs, such as the Integrated Risk Information System and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which involve synthesizing extensive scientific research. Findings from these programs inform some of the most significant regulations the agency enforces and are frequently challenged by industry interests and their political allies.
If staff begin to leave in larger numbers, one external scientific advisor to the EPA cautioned that legislative action may not be necessary for the agency's capacity to diminish.
“I think sort of hollowing out the expertise is a concern,” said the anonymous advisory board member, allowing for candid discussion.
State environmental agencies are bracing for a potential reduction in the federal workforce and are advocating for increased federal funding to compensate for any shortcomings that may arise. EPA has delegated authority to most states for key federal programs managing water and air pollution, but federal funding for State and Tribal Assistance Grants has remained relatively stable in recent years. As this funding represents a substantial portion of the EPA’s budget, it is often a target for cuts in Republican proposals.
“The states are very concerned about the funding to hire the workforce and to run the delegated programs — the basics of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,” Ben Grumbles, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, noted. “It’s going to be an increasing concern if the federal agencies like EPA are dramatically downsized and Congress is not providing the resources.”
Meanwhile, environmental groups are preparing for potential changes at the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. This office has historically been a target for GOP administrations and was restructured during Ronald Reagan’s first term, although it was later reestablished under the Clinton administration.
During Trump’s initial term, there were rumors that political leaders would try to dissolve the centralized office. Eric Schaeffer, who previously led the Office of Civil Enforcement and later founded the watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project, criticized Trump allies who call for reduced enforcement actions or complete cessation.
“I think they have a very primitive kind of ‘ticket writing’ concept of enforcement,” Schaeffer remarked. He likened the complexity of environmental investigations to those conducted by police officers, emphasizing the need for skilled personnel adept at monitoring and forensic work.
Outside organizations are closely monitoring whether the second Trump administration will attempt to reorganize the enforcement office. Additionally, there is concern that any enforcement personnel could be redirected to investigate groups that have received funding via the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act programs.
Sankar from Earthjustice expressed readiness to support organizations that might be inundated with document requests and other investigative demands from the incoming administration.
“The Trump administration, one of its stated priorities is to eliminate support for a clean energy transition and therefore we fully expect that they will be looking for ways to interfere with funding and activities by companies and groups trying to do that work, and we are preparing to help support them,” he concluded.
Debra A Smith for TROIB News
