EPA employees call out leadership over environmental policies

On June 30, 2025, over 300 current and former employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a declaration of dissent against the agency's leadership under Administrator Lee Zeldin. This dissent was marked by a strong statement highlighting a shift away from the agency's mission of protecting human health and the environment, driven by recent policy changes viewed as harmful. With 190 identified signers and 134 who chose to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation, the group expressed serious concerns about deregulation efforts, misrepresentation of prior EPA actions, and a disregard for scientific expertise. The document from these employees indicates they believe the Trump administration has unraveled important public health and environmental protections, prioritizing political gains over scientific integrity. They accused the current leadership of misusing the EPA's communications platforms for partisan purposes, which deviates from its traditionally non-partisan nature. The group specifically pointed to the promotion of fossil fuel interests while undermining support for initiatives aimed at transitioning toward cleaner technologies. This contradiction has raised serious questions about the agency's credibility and functionality. Additionally, the dissenters raised alarms about cuts to environmental improvements in minority communities, the cancellation of environmental justice programs, and the dismantling of the Office of Research and Development. These actions, they argue, could have long-lasting repercussions on public health and safety, particularly concerning vulnerable communities affected by hazardous chemicals and unsafe drinking water. They emphasized that the decisions made under Zeldin's leadership pose risks that may impact generations to come, highlighting the urgent need for a return to the core mission of the agency. The dissenting employees' move mirrors similar actions from the scientific community, including staff from the National Institutes of Health, showcasing a growing trend of scientists speaking out against political interference in their work. Such bold statements reflect a significant tension between the current administration and the scientific ethos that the EPA was originally founded upon, where science and funding were intended to serve the public good. The public statement demanding a change in direction represents not only a collective call for accountability but also a cry for restoring integrity in the agency's mission to safeguard environmental health.