The Trump administration has made bold promises that have left many wondering which will actually come to fruition. One area that is already feeling the impact of the transition team’s focus is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As someone who worked at the EPA for nearly twenty years, I have seen firsthand the importance of the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment.

Political appointees are a common occurrence in federal agencies, but the expertise and institutional knowledge of career employees are essential for carrying out the agency’s mission, regardless of who is in power. During my time at the EPA, I witnessed attacks on science driven by political motives and industry interests, all aimed at undermining the core values and mission of the agency.

Recently, former Congressman Lee Zeldin was nominated by the President-elect to lead the EPA. With no relevant environmental background, Zeldin faces a crucial decision between upholding the agency’s mission to serve the public or following through on the Trump campaign’s promise of deregulation. Deregulation may benefit big polluters at the expense of public health, particularly in environmental justice communities where marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by pollution.

Zeldin’s history of supporting fossil fuel interests and voting against clean air and water legislation raises concerns about his commitment to protecting people and the environment. Scientists play a crucial role at the EPA, providing expertise to inform policies that safeguard public health and the environment. However, when science is sidelined or manipulated for political gain, it puts all of us at risk.

Under the previous Trump administration, over 50 instances of attacks on science were documented, including censoring scientists, undermining safeguards, and driving out scientific experts from the agency. This anti-science stance poses a threat to public health and the environment, as well as eroding trust in government agencies.

It is essential to protect science, stability, and our future by supporting the EPA’s mission and ensuring that qualified scientists are able to carry out their work without political interference. By advocating for increased funding for the EPA and holding nominees like Zeldin accountable, we can uphold the agency’s crucial role in protecting public health and the environment.

Organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have a track record of successfully challenging anti-science policies and advocating for evidence-based decision-making. By continuing to support federal scientists, holding nominees accountable, and advocating for funding to support communities affected by pollution, we can protect the integrity of science and safeguard public health.

Independent science is a public good that must be preserved, and it is up to us to ensure that the EPA remains committed to its mission of protecting human health and the environment.