For four decades, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta worked in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a firsthand observer of the evolution of science within the agency. 

As the principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), she helped guide the agency through critical changes—from early pollutant detection to integration of computational technologies that transformed how environmental threats are studied and regulated. 

Orme-Zavaleta, who retired in 2021, was alarmed to learn of the potential dismantling of the office. Details of the plan, which were reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, were first reported by The New York Times. If it moves forward, it could result in the firing of up to 1,155 scientists, including chemists, toxicologists and biologists, and the closure of multiple research facilities across the country.

In an emailed statement, an EPA spokesperson said: “EPA is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements. We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans. While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever.”

The proposal, Orme-Zavaleta said, would slash ORD’s workforce by 50 to 75 percent. ORD serves as the agency’s eyes and ears, and its scientists work to detect pollutants, evaluate toxic risks, develop technologies to remove environmental contaminants and ensure that regulations are grounded in the best available science. 

Gutting this office, she warned, will not only debilitate immediate regulatory work but also hamper the agency’s ability to address emerging threats like PFAS chemicals and nanoplastics. Without ORD, the EPA would lose critical research capacity, risk assessment expertise and its ability to anticipate environmental dangers before they harm public health, she said.

Orme-Zavaleta, who sits on the board of directors of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization made up of former EPA staffers, called the proposed reorganization “an affront to science” and “an attack on the very lifeblood of the agency.” She fears this move could stall scientific progress for decades and weaken America’s core environmental protections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

AMAN AZHAR: What have you heard about the potential elimination of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the firing of scientists?

JENNIFER ORME-ZAVALETA: I received a call about the language that’s apparently part of the agency’s reorganization plan, and that language basically called for removing or eliminating ORD as a national program. 

It would redistribute some staff functions to other program offices within the agency and eliminate up to 50 to 75 percent of the current staff. That’s over 1,000 scientists—chemists, toxicologists, biologists—people who’ve built their careers serving public health. 

While I haven’t spoken with anyone currently working at the agency about this directly, I did talk to someone familiar with internal plans, and the direction is deeply concerning. Even if not finalized, the intention behind the language is clear, and the implications are devastating.

AZHAR: Can you describe the role ORD plays within EPA?

ORME-ZAVALETA: The mission of the agency is to protect human health and the environment, and the agency is responsible for implementing a number of environmental statutes that Congress passed, largely in the 1970s. Many of those statutes require the use of the best available science. ORD is that arm of the agency that provides science to help inform agency decisions and to help solve environmental problems.

ORD conducts research that helps us learn what pollutants are in the environment—in our air, in our water, our drinking water, in our soils and communities. They develop methods to measure those contaminants and conduct research to understand our exposures. They also study what happens once we are exposed—how toxic are those contaminants to us, to fish and to other organisms in the environment. They help us evaluate risk, understand risk and, more importantly, develop technologies to help remove these things from the environment and reduce our exposures and reduce our risk.

AZHAR: When you led the office, what were your priorities?

ORME-ZAVALETA: Our main focus was to better align our research to meet the agency program needs. We went through an extensive reorganization process to better refine our research programs and better align our research capabilities to reduce redundancies, increase efficiencies and better meet the agency’s needs. This was during the previous Trump administration. We worked hard to get ourselves better positioned to support the agency and support the program needs.

We also partnered with the states heavily and really worked to establish those connections. Environmental protection is a system that involves not only EPA, but also states and tribes, and there’s also a lot of international collaboration as well.

AZHAR: How did science evolve during your tenure?

ORME-ZAVALETA: Science really evolved. There were greater uses of technology and innovations, and I got in sort of in that transition period, where we were able to take advantage of computational capabilities to predict toxicology, things along that line. So, I think that we became smarter in how we were able to do our science and have that science be more targeted to the questions that were facing the agency, and being able to provide the agency with the information that [it] needed.

“It took decades to build it. It will take decades to rebuild it.”

AZHAR: Would the layoff plan affect ORD’s laboratories across the country?

ORME-ZAVALETA: Yes, dramatically. ORD’s headquarters is in Washington, D.C., but major research is done in places like Research Triangle Park in North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. We also have facilities in Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Oregon. If 50 to 75 percent of staff are cut, some of these locations will close. People will be let go, some reassigned—but the scientific capacity we’ve built will be gutted. The agency is likely still evaluating how to implement such a plan, but if it goes into effect, we’re looking at a nationwide decimation of environmental research.

AZHAR:How hard is it to develop this kind of scientific capacity, and how long would it take to rebuild if it is gutted?

ORME-ZAVALETA: EPA has existed for 54 years, going on 55—it’s taken that long. By losing that investment and losing that historical knowledge and that technical expertise, that will not be rebuilt overnight. It took decades to build it. It will take decades to rebuild it.

AZHAR: What would this mean for EPA’s regulatory and enforcement work?

ORME-ZAVALETA: The program offices that develop the regulations do have some scientific staff that work in those offices, but those staff do not conduct research. They will do their own evaluations of what science is available to help inform decisions, but it’s very likely, because they will be under political leadership, that they may not look at all the science. They may select what science they want to use to give them the regulatory outcome that they desire. I think the public is going to be not as well served.

Emerging contaminants in the environment will go unchecked—things like fluorinated compounds. It was ORD science that helped open up that understanding of PFAS in the environment. Without ORD doing that work, we may not have the level of understanding that we have now.

AZHAR: Is this office the one that acts as EPA’s eyes and ears on emerging challenges

ORME-ZAVALETA: This office is the one that looks down the road. This office meets the immediate needs of the agency. They respond to emergencies that may come up, such as a hurricane, an oil spill or a mining accident. 

The Office of Research and Development is there to help deal with those issues, deal with the science issues and figure out how best to get things cleaned up. That part is at risk. And then because of their technical expertise, they are looking out down the road and trying to make sure we understand what’s coming at us, whether it’s important, whether it’s a risk, and helping the agency in what actions it may need to take.

AZHAR: So, is it immediate work that gets affected by this decision?

ORME-ZAVALETA: It’s immediate work, but it’s also part of ORD’s responsibilities—we’re looking down the road to see what problems are emerging, and PFAS was one of those. We’re hearing about micro and nanoplastics in the environment. Again, that’s a role where ORD would be instrumental in helping the agency determine whether they need to take action to reduce exposures and reduce risk. Without that organization doing that work, the agency is not going to have that information.

ORD partners with the states and the tribes and other organizations, including other federal agencies. There’s a large network that cooperates in conducting research and gathering information. If dollars don’t flow to ORD, they’re not going to flow to the states, they’re not going to flow to communities, they’re not going to flow to academic institutions. It’s going to leave a huge vacuum and leave the American public unaware of what might be out there.

AZHAR: Could Congress step in to block this move?

ORME-ZAVALETA: The executive branch is to implement. Congress is who created EPA, through a reorganization plan. … Congress established the Office of Research and Development, and everything ORD does is through appropriations by Congress. Congress establishes the resources, the people and the dollars. It also establishes the direction in its language of what research ORD does. 

So, Congress has a huge role. Whether they’ll step out and assert themselves is another matter.

“It’s going to leave a huge vacuum and leave the American public unaware of what might be out there.”

AZHAR: What else can be done to push back against this move?

ORME-ZAVALETA: The public needs to understand what’s happening. They need to understand, you know, what they’re going to lose by all of these changes across the government, whether it’s EPA, but all of the other organizations. 

EPA and ORD and their interests are not going to be served. They are not going to be protected. They will be at greater risk. It’s really the Congress and the courts [that] have got to step up. We have got to re-establish a balance of power the way that our Constitution determined it and put these changes into check. This is not what the American people signed up for.

AZHAR: What’s your personal reaction to all this?

ORME-ZAVALETA: Personally, it’s very sad. It’s just a stupid thing to do. I think this is the biggest difference between Trump One and Trump Two. 

It’s one thing where you see policy changes between administrations. We always see that. But to have an attack on the people who are the very lifeblood of this agency, and again, their desire to serve the public and to make a difference in this world, and to see an attack on them—it’s unconscionable.

Aman Azhar

Reporter, Washington, D.C.

Aman Azhar is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who covers environmental justice for Inside Climate News with focus on Baltimore-Maryland area. He has previously worked as a broadcast journalist and multimedia producer for the BBC World Service, VOA News and other international news organizations, reporting from London, Islamabad, the United Arab Emirates and New York. He holds a graduate degree in Anthropology of Media from University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and an MA in Political Science from the University of the Punjab, and is the recipient of the Chevening scholarship from the UK government and an academic scholarship for graduate studies from the Australian government.

• 
  @TheAmanAzhar
  
• 
  [email protected]