On Friday, the Administration began releasing information about their proposed reorganization at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which may have major implications for environmental research, regulatory science, and federal support for state and community-level environmental protection efforts. This re-organization came on the same day that a 54.1 percent reduction to EPA’s topline budget was proposed in the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 Budget request –and the same day that Administrator Lee Zeldin released a video stating his intention to return staffing levels not seen since President Reagan. The rationale for the re-organization was to “bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our rulemakings and sharply focus our work on providing the cleanest air, land, and water for our communities. It will also save at least $300 million annually for the American people.”
Following a series of internal "all hands" meetings across the Agency on Friday afternoon, EPA political officials shared preliminary details about the reorganization. Formal Reduction in Force (RIF) notices have not yet been issued, and there are numerous other aspects of EPA’s work that will be impacted by the re-organization that have not been detailed in public communications.
Key Research Developments:
- Employees in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) have been informed they may apply to be reassigned to a newly proposed office: the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASES), which would report directly to the EPA Administrator and consist of two sub-units:
- the Applied and Environmental Methods Division (which would have offices in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina / Cincinnati, Ohio /DC); and
- the Environmental Solutions Division (which would have offices in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina/Cincinnati, Ohio/Ada, Oklahoma)
- OASES is expected to include approximately 300 positions, while around 130 jobs will be posted in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). The Office of Water may also have some additional positions.
- These postings opened on Friday and will close within a week. The implication (though it was not stated explicitly) is that ORD staff will have preference for these positions, though they may be open for other EPA employees as well from other offices that are being downsized.
- While not explicitly stated, steep RIF’s will occur for ORD employees not being transferred to other offices or who do not take the “fork.”
- The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) will be reorganized to have two new offices: Office of State Air Partnerships and an Office of Clean Air Programs but is likely to eliminate activities currently being overseen by the Office of Atmospheric Protection, which include greenhouse gas reporting/inventories, activities focused on methane, hydrofluorocarbon etc...
- The Office of Water (OW) will be similarly re-organized, with a greater emphasis around cyber security, emergency response, and water re-use/conservation
- Based on the presentations delivered in the “all hands” meetings Friday, we do not expect significant RIFs in OW or OCSPP, even with the re-structuring.
- All EPA employees have also been offered a “fork in the road” offer— i.e., the deferred resignation to exit the agency — with the same one-week deadline.
- Separate reporting in the popular press also suggests that EPA is in the process of changing their grant review/approval protocol, with indications that EPA will be directed to have all awards reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in alignment with the Make America Health Again (MAHA) agenda.
While more formal information (e.g., an offic
On Friday, the Administration began releasing information about their proposed reorganization at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which may have major implications for environmental research, regulatory science, and federal support for state and community-level environmental protection efforts. This re-organization came on the same day that a 54.1 percent reduction to EPA’s topline budget was proposed in the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 Budget request –and the same day that Administrator Lee Zeldin released a video stating his intention to return staffing levels not seen since President Reagan. The rationale for the re-organization was to “bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our rulemakings and sharply focus our work on providing the cleanest air, land, and water for our communities. It will also save at least $300 million annually for the American people.”
Following a series of internal "all hands" meetings across the Agency on Friday afternoon, EPA political officials shared preliminary details about the reorganization. Formal Reduction in Force (RIF) notices have not yet been issued, and there are numerous other aspects of EPA’s work that will be impacted by the re-organization that have not been detailed in public communications.
Key Research Developments:
- Employees in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) have been informed they may apply to be reassigned to a newly proposed office: the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASES), which would report directly to the EPA Administrator and consist of two sub-units:
- the Applied and Environmental Methods Division (which would have offices in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina / Cincinnati, Ohio /DC); and
- the Environmental Solutions Division (which would have offices in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina/Cincinnati, Ohio/Ada, Oklahoma)
- OASES is expected to include approximately 300 positions, while around 130 jobs will be posted in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). The Office of Water may also have some additional positions.
- These postings opened on Friday and will close within a week. The implication (though it was not stated explicitly) is that ORD staff will have preference for these positions, though they may be open for other EPA employees as well from other offices that are being downsized.
- While not explicitly stated, steep RIF’s will occur for ORD employees not being transferred to other offices or who do not take the “fork.”
- The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) will be reorganized to have two new offices: Office of State Air Partnerships and an Office of Clean Air Programs but is likely to eliminate activities currently being overseen by the Office of Atmospheric Protection, which include greenhouse gas reporting/inventories, activities focused on methane, hydrofluorocarbon etc...
- The Office of Water (OW) will be similarly re-organized, with a greater emphasis around cyber security, emergency response, and water re-use/conservation
- Based on the presentations delivered in the “all hands” meetings Friday, we do not expect significant RIFs in OW or OCSPP, even with the re-structuring.
- All EPA employees have also been offered a “fork in the road” offer— i.e., the deferred resignation to exit the agency — with the same one-week deadline.
- Separate reporting in the popular press also suggests that EPA is in the process of changing their grant review/approval protocol, with indications that EPA will be directed to have all awards reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in alignment with the Make America Health Again (MAHA) agenda.
While more formal information (e.g., an official organizational chart or public notice) has yet to be released by EPA, there are some questions/concerns about the proposals to the treatment of scientific research –which may impact how institutions will engage with EPA:
Potential Impacts:
- Reduced Support for Extramural Research: The messaging around the President’s Budget Request and the presentation in Friday’s all hands meeting suggests that the new science office under the Administrator will not prioritize extramural research funding. This could be a risk for universities/other institutions who conduct research with or for EPA, though details are still forthcoming.
- Increased Secretary Influence on Research Priorities: Locating EPA’s core scientific work directly under the Administrator may more closely tie the research agenda of EPA to the political priorities of the Administration and lessen its independence.
- Loss of Support for Basic Environmental Health Research: Basic research, historically supported by ORD, appears to have no clear home in the proposed re-structuring. This could severely weaken EPA’s long-term capacity to understand and respond to emerging environmental health threats.
- Shifting Responsibility to States: A core philosophy behind the proposed changes appears to be devolving more regulatory responsibility to states. If Congress enables this approach to be taken, and this approach is not challenged successfully in court, there will be a greater demand for state partnerships with universities/scientific institutions to conduct needed environmental health work.
ial organizational chart or public notice) has yet to be released by EPA, there are some questions/concerns about the proposals to the treatment of scientific research –which may impact how institutions will engage with EPA:
Potential Impacts:
- Reduced Support for Extramural Research: The messaging around the President’s Budget Request and the presentation in Friday’s all hands meeting suggests that the new science office under the Administrator will not prioritize extramural research funding. This could be a risk for universities/other institutions who conduct research with or for EPA, though details are still forthcoming.
- Increased Secretary Influence on Research Priorities: Locating EPA’s core scientific work directly under the Administrator may more closely tie the research agenda of EPA to the political priorities of the Administration and lessen its independence.
- Loss of Support for Basic Environmental Health Research: Basic research, historically supported by ORD, appears to have no clear home in the proposed re-structuring. This could severely weaken EPA’s long-term capacity to understand and respond to emerging environmental health threats.
- Shifting Responsibility to States: A core philosophy behind the proposed changes appears to be devolving more regulatory responsibility to states. If Congress enables this approach to be taken, and this approach is not challenged successfully in court, there will be a greater demand for state partnerships with universities/scientific institutions to conduct needed environmental health work.