Skip to main content

Re-envisioning EPA and its work in the post-Trump era: perspectives from EPA employees


The Trump administration has severely curtailed the work of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has rolled back environmental protections, lost ground on addressing climate change and environmental justice, and shed large numbers of experienced staff. All of this has accelerated a longer-term decline in EPA resources, expertise, and authority. Here, we present perspectives of EPA employees and retirees on reconfiguring and strengthening the agency to address current and future environmental health problems, based on qualitative data obtained through 100 semi-structured interviews with 76 current and former EPA employees. Interviewees emphasized a number of internal and external issues, including a hyper-partisan context in which the agency operates, lack of public understanding of the extent of domestic and global environmental problems, budget shortfalls, staffing and leadership challenges, reduced scientific capacity and use of science in decision-making, insufficient attention to environmental justice, and lagging technology. We argue that reforms cannot only be expert-driven but must also come from the public, incorporating community driven solutions and focusing on remedying environmental injustice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    US EPA. Our Mission and What We Do [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from:

  2. 2.

    Fredrickson L, Sullivan M, Sellers C, Ohayon J, Kohl E, Lamdan S, et al. A sheep in the closet: the erosion of enforcement at the EPA. 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 16]. Available from:

  3. 3.

    Popovich N, Albeck-Ripka L, Pierre-Louis K. The trump administration is reversing 100 environmental rules. here’s the full list. New York Times [Internet]. 2020 May 20 [cited 2020 Jun 1]; Available from:

  4. 4.

    Carson R. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    US EPA. National air quality: status and trends of key air pollutants. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 16]. Available from:

  6. 6.

    Keiser DA, Shapiro JS. US water pollution regulation over the past half century: burning waters to crystal springs? J Econom Perspect. 2019;33(4):51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Currie J, Walker R. What do economists have to say about the clean air act 50 years after the establishment of the environmental protection agency? J Econom Perspect. 2019;33(4):3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Davies C, Mazurek J. Regulating pollution: does the U.S. system work. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1997.

  9. 9.

    Esty DC. Red lights to green lights: from 20th century environmental regulation to 21st century sustainability. Environ Law. 2017;47(1):1–80. Available from:

  10. 10.

    van Loo R. Regulatory monitors: policing firms in the compliance era. Columbia Law Rev. 2019;119(2):369–444.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harrison JL. From the inside out: the fight for environmental justice within government agencies. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pulido L, Kohl E, Cotton NM. State regulation and environmental justice: the need for strategy reassessment. Capitalism Nature Socialism. 2016;27(2):12–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dunlap RE, McCright AM. Challenging climate change: the denial countermovement. In: Dunlap RE, Brulle RJ, editors. Climate change and society: sociological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 300–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brulle RJ. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change. 2014;122(4):681–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Chenyang X. Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the United States, 2006–12. Weather Clim Soc. 2014;6(2):194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Medzihorsky J, Littvay L, Jenne EK. Has the tea party era radicalized the Republican party? Evidence from text analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican primary debates. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2014;47(4):806–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gullen A, Snider A, Wolf E. Fact check: Trump’s environmental rhetoric versus his record. Politico. 2019 Jul 8; Available from:

  19. 19.

    Pew Research Center. Majorities see government efforts to protect the environment as insufficient. 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 1]. Available from:

  20. 20.

    Powell MR. Science at EPA: information in the regulatory process. New York: Resources for the Future; 1999. p. 433.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere. Am Sociol Rev. 2012;77(2):167–87. Available from:

  22. 22.

    Grandjean P, Bellanger M. Calculation of the disease burden associated with environmental chemical exposures: application of toxicological information in health economic estimation. Environ Health. 2017;16(1).

  23. 23.

    Friedman L.E.P.A. Cancels talk on climate change by agency scientists. New York Times. 2017 Oct 22 [cited 2020 May 31]; Available from:

  24. 24.

    Union of Concerned Scientists. EPA scientists restricted from speaking freely with the media. 2009 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from:

  25. 25.

    Cornwell DA, Brown RA, Via SH. National survey of lead service line occurrence. J Am Water Works Assoc. 2016;108(4):E182–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Buonocore JJ, Lambert KF, Burtraw D, Sekar S, Driscoll CT. An analysis of costs and health co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6).

  27. 27.

    Executive Order 12898. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Federal Register 59(32). 1994 [cited 2020 Jun 17]. Available from:

  28. 28.

    Environmental Protection Network. Analysis of Trump Administration’s 2021 proposed budget: turning back the clock on 50 years of environmental protection. 2020 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from:

  29. 29.

    Sellers C, Sullivan M, Breseman K, Nost E, EDGI. An embattled landscape series, Part 2b: the declining capacity of federal environmental science—environmental data and governance initiative. 2020 [cited 2020 May 31]. Available from:

  30. 30.

    US EPA. EPA’s Budget and spending. 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 17]. Available from:

  31. 31.

    Cordner A, de La Rosa VY, Schaider LA, Rudel RA, Richter L, Brown P. Guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water: the role of scientific uncertainty, risk assessment decisions, and social factors. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2019;29(2):157–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    The Lancet Planetary Health. Microplastics and human health—an urgent problem. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017;1(7):e254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Federal pollution prosecutions continue to fall. 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 1]. Available from:

  34. 34.

    Philpott T. The EPA finally admitted that the world’s most popular pesticide kills bees—20 Years Too Late. Mother Jones. 2016 [cited 2020 May 13]; Available from:

  35. 35.

    Sánchez-Bayo F, Goulson D, Pennacchio F, Nazzi F, Goka K, Desneux N. Are bee diseases linked to pesticides? A brief review. Environ Int. 2016;1(89–90):7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Desikan A, Carter J, Kinser S, Goldman G. Abandoned science, broken promises how the Trump Administration’s neglect of science is leaving marginalized communities further behind. 2019 [cited 2020 May 31]. Available from:

  37. 37.

    Union of Concerned Scientists. Science under Trump: voices of scientists across 16 federal agencies. 2018 [cited 2020 May 31]. Available from:

  38. 38.

    National Research Council. air quality management in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2004 [cited 2020 Aug 28]. Available from:

  39. 39.

    Snyder EG, Watkins TH, Solomon PA, Thoma ED, Williams RW, Hagler GSW, et al. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(20):11369–77. Available from:

  40. 40.

    Jahn M, Treverton GF, Bray DA, Jayamaha B, Valdez B, Carnes B, et al. Are declines in U.S. federal workforce capabilities putting our government at risk of failing?. 2019 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from:

  41. 41.

    Friedman L, O’Neill C. Who controls Trump’s environmental policy? new York Times. 2020 Jan 14 [cited 2020 May 31]; Available from:

  42. 42.

    Cohen DM. Amateur government: when political appointees manage the federal bureaucracy . 1996 Feb [cited 2020 Jun 1]. Available from:

  43. 43.

    Frank T. The wrecking crew: how conservatives rule. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    National Commission on the Public Service. Urgent business for america: revitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. 2003 [cited 2020 May 13]. Available from:

  45. 45.

    Reeder J. Moving forward: future directions for EPA and environmental protection. 2019 Dec [cited 2020 Jun 17]. Available from:

  46. 46.

    Meiburg S, Brenner R, Calvert A, Fabian G, Funke O, Gaber N, et al. ENVIRONMENT 2045: future directions for environmental progress and EPA’s role focus group 5: tools, processes, culture and resources [cited 2020 Aug 28]. Available from:

  47. 47.

    Harrison JL. ‘We do ecology, not sociology’: interactions among bureaucrats and the undermining of regulatory agencies’ environmental justice efforts. Environ Sociol. 2017;3(3):197–212. Available from:

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Sullivan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sullivan, M., Sellers, C., Fredrickson, L. et al. Re-envisioning EPA and its work in the post-Trump era: perspectives from EPA employees. J Public Health Pol 42, 281–297 (2021).

Download citation


  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Environmental regulation
  • Environmental health policy
  • Environmental justice