3 Ways Trump’s EPA Could Employ the Language of Science to Weaken Pollution Controls

Environmental issues were conspicuously absent from the 2024 US presidential campaign, but President-elect Donald Trump’s moves first administration and his leadership choices for the next administration offer clues about what may lie ahead for him.

They point to a likely second Trump administration relaxation of regulations regarding industriesespecially oil, gas and petrochemical products, giving them broader permission to pollute.

Some activities it will be public. But history suggests that this administration may also try to operate the language of science – terms like transparency, citizen science and uncertainty – weaken environmental and health protection AND write regulations that are more favorable to the industry.

These ideas emerged during the first Trump administration and in conservative agendas such as Project 2025. Project 2025 was written by former Trump administration officials, including: several people Trump contacted for his next administration. Trump he distanced himself from the project during the campaign, but now he says he agrees with many parts of it.

I closely followed the first Trump administration as a researcher involved in the so-called Data and Environmental Governance Initiativeor EDGI. The group was founded in 2016 to document Trump’s efforts to disband the Environmental Protection Agency. During the first Trump administration, we Archived climate and environmental datasets exploited by scientists, advocates and policymakers who feared the administration might hide them. We also followed how the Trump administration changed its climate language on the agency’s website.

EDGI too interviews with agency employees in the face of political pressures and explained the potential impact policy changes and rule changes.

Here are three ways a second Trump administration could try to operate the language of science to write policies that sound beneficial but could have a profound impact on environmental health.

1. “Strengthening transparency” to block the operate of health data

When you hear words like “transparency” or “open source”, they probably sound positive – the idea is that all parts can be seen and checked.

But would you like your health records to be open for anyone to see? The privacy of medical records was a major topic of debate over a policy created by the first Trump administration calledStrengthening transparency on key scientific issues underlying significant regulatory actions“or”secret scienceprinciple.

This rule could have prevented the government from considering essential health research when setting pollution limits.

Decades of health data collected from people across the United States have shown the impact air pollution from power plants and other sources can have contribute to cancer and other diseases. This data provided evidence of regulations that have cleaned up the country’s air and water, ensuring a healthier environment.

But the raw data from these studies cannot be made public because this includes individuals’ personal medical records. The ruled that the EPA was finalized in the final weeks of the first Trump administration required the agency to give less weight to research if the underlying data was not publicly available. Court left this policy on February 1, 2021.

I expect the Trump EPA will again try to require that the agency’s rules be based on published raw data. The Project Agenda 2025 calls for “true transparency” to be a hallmark of the EPA, which includes “establishing open source science.” This would limit the operate of private health data or data whose operate is licensed to companies. That would be it make it difficult to develop rules protection of public health.

2. Escalate public scrutiny of the EPA

Author Project 2025 chapter on the Economic Partnership Agreement was Mandy Gunasekarawho served as chief of staff to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the first Trump administration. In addition to transparency, Gunasekara also proposed “citizen science” as a way to “empower society to bring science under greater agency.”

At its best, citizen science is an essential way to bring research to the public reflects their interests and experiences. At worst, citizen science is used to it delay significant action.

Who benefits from “overriding the public” in EPA science control depends on who has access to the information and resources to engage. Wealthy industries and private interests can gain a greater voice, while communities most affected by pollution stay on the sidelinesespecially if the government makes it difficult to find EPA scientific information.

Project 2025 also calls for changing the composition of EPA’s advisory boards and even suspending some of them. These councils take into account views from industry, academia and the community. Similar actions during the first Trump administration the number of academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations on these councils was constrained, while increasing the number of industry consultants.

3. Exploiting uncertainty to avoid regulation

Uncertainty is another essential scientific term used by the first Trump administration used to promote deregulationespecially in the case of chemicals.

When EPA tests chemicals, there is uncertainty about the health effects at different levels and types of exposure. AND preventive approach assumes that chemicals have adverse effects in compact doses and that these effects escalate as exposure increases or accumulates. Many scientists consider caution as a safer choice when there is insufficient knowledge about how chemicals work.

However, some chemicals may not actually cause harm until they reach a certain threshold. In a look at the chemical industrywhich means that the “better safe and sound than sorry” approach may be wrong. Instead, the industry believes that regulation of chemicals should be based on: the best science available. However, the best available scientific information about chemicals is often inconclusive. In the absence of a preventive approach, the industry’s argument for “best available science” may actually mean less justification for regulation.

As part of Project 2025, it is proposed that on the first day of office Trump should issue an order “reject preemptive insolvency models and uncertainty factors” that “result in erroneous and murky decisions.”

The consequences could include EPA analyzes that underestimate the risks of toxic chemicals at a time when research is still emerging. as in the case of PFAS.

What’s next?

Our team at EDGI works with partners to re-identify federal websites and data sets that are vulnerable to deletion, modification or destruction. This allows us to raise the alarm if there are no resources to track and counteract climate and environmental change. We believe that regulators’ strategies caused political appointments he was hesitant to order more changes during the first Trump administration.

I don’t think Trump’s next EPA will be downright “anti-science.” However, I believe he will operate language that appears to escalate openness of research and citizen participation, but is designed to undermine policies that protect human health and the environment.