EPA Dissent: Environmental Justice Under Fire

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The second Trump administration has seen a significant shift in the direction of federal agencies, particularly impacting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Employees at the EPA have voiced their profound concerns, culminating in a formal “Declaration of Dissent” against the administration’s policies. This declaration highlights deep disagreements with the leadership of Administrator Lee Zeldin and the broader implications for environmental protection and public health across the nation.

Over 170 EPA employees, along with non-EPA scientists and Nobel laureates, have signed this declaration (blackamericaweb.com). Another 100 employees chose to sign anonymously, underscoring the potential professional repercussions for those who speak out. This collective action represents a significant internal challenge to the agency’s current direction, particularly in relation to its core mission and the well-being of vulnerable communities.

Understanding the Declaration of Dissent

A “Declaration of Dissent” within a federal agency is a formal statement by employees expressing strong disagreement with current policies or actions. It serves as a collective voice of concern, often highlighting perceived deviations from the agency’s core mission, scientific integrity, or ethical standards. For signatories, potential consequences can include administrative leave or other forms of professional repercussions, though the act itself is a form of protected speech (UPI.com).

The EPA’s declaration specifically targets Administrator Lee Zeldin’s leadership, accusing him of undermining public trust in the EPA, ignoring scientific consensus, and reversing progress in America’s most vulnerable communities (blackamericaweb.com). Furthermore, the declaration asserts that Zeldin is promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and their professional integrity. This internal protest highlights a profound concern among career professionals about the agency’s capacity to fulfill its mandate to safeguard human health and the environment.

The Core of Environmental Justice

At the heart of the dissent lies the concept of environmental justice. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Its primary goal is to address the disproportionate environmental harms faced by marginalized communities, which are often communities of color and low-income populations (NPR.org).

The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) was established to integrate these principles into the agency’s operations, ensuring that all communities, especially those historically burdened by pollution, have a voice in environmental decision-making. However, since January 2025, the EPA has placed the vast majority of environmental justice staff on administrative leave, canceled billions in grant dollars intended for communities, and removed a valuable mapping analysis tool (blackamericaweb.com). These actions are viewed by the dissenters as “failing to serve the American people” rather than merely cutting waste, which directly impacts the agency’s capacity to address environmental inequities and protect vulnerable populations (blackamericaweb.com).

Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Policy Direction

Lee Zeldin serves as the current Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration. His policy stance emphasizes a return to what he terms the EPA’s “core mission to protect human health and the environment,” while simultaneously promoting American energy independence (startribune.com). He has been vocal about rolling back what he considers “ideological priorities” from the previous administration, particularly in areas such as Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) and environmental justice (EPA.gov).

Zeldin’s leadership has drawn criticism from EPA employees who accuse him of promoting the fossil fuel industry and stripping support for cleaner energy initiatives, which they believe undermines the EPA’s scientific credibility (UPI.com). He has defended the cancellation of environmental justice grants, asserting that funds were not being spent effectively on “remediating that environmental issue” but rather on other priorities (federalnewsnetwork.com). This perspective frames the dismantling of environmental justice programs as a necessary correction rather than a detrimental cut to essential services.

The Battle Over “Cancer Alley” and DEI

One stark example of the EPA’s policy shift is evident in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley.” This heavily industrialized stretch along the Mississippi River, between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, is notorious for its high concentration of petrochemical plants and refineries. Residents in this area, predominantly Black and low-income communities, experience significantly elevated rates of cancer and other health issues due to chronic exposure to toxic emissions (NPR.org).

Under the Biden administration, a lawsuit was initiated against Denka Performance Elastomer, a chemical plant in “Cancer Alley,” due to alleged cancer risks to the predominantly Black community (APnews.com). However, the Trump administration’s Justice Department stated that ending this petrochemical case helps “dismantle radical DEI programs” (APnews.com). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs are initiatives designed to promote fair treatment and full participation for all individuals, particularly those from underrepresented groups. In this context, the Trump administration views them as “radical and wasteful government DEI programs” that advance “ideological priorities” rather than the agency’s core mission (EPA.gov). This decision to drop the lawsuit is seen by many as a reversal of efforts to hold major polluters accountable and address environmental injustices (washingtonpost.com).

Legal Challenges to EPA’s Actions

The EPA’s recent actions are not only facing internal dissent but also significant legal challenges. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has filed a legal complaint seeking to reintegrate nearly 170 environmental justice staff members into the EPA workforce after they were placed on administrative leave (peer.org). Placing staff on administrative leave means temporarily removing them from their duties with pay, often during an investigation or significant organizational change. For these employees, it implies uncertainty about their job security and the potential elimination of their positions, as seen with Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist from the OEJ, who has been on leave since February (startribune.com).

In addition, Downwinders at Risk and other environmental advocacy groups in North Texas have filed a lawsuit against the EPA over its refusal to disburse congressionally approved grants (blackamericaweb.com). These grants were intended for air-monitoring groups in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to expand their efforts into at-risk and low-income communities. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA’s refusal violates “bedrock separation-of-powers principles” by effectively repealing a congressional enactment and impounding funds based on the President’s disagreement with policies Congress duly enacted (blackamericaweb.com). The reasons cited by Administrator Zeldin for these cancellations are that the funds were not being spent on “remediating that environmental issue” but rather on “ideological priorities” (federalnewsnetwork.com).

Impact on Communities and Public Health

The rollback of environmental justice efforts and the cancellation of grants have concrete and severe consequences for vulnerable and low-income communities. These actions erode protections against disproportionate environmental harms, restrict access to essential resources for addressing pollution, and diminish the voice of these communities in environmental decision-making. Communities already burdened by industrial pollution, such as those in “Cancer Alley,” face increased health risks and a lack of support for remediation and advocacy (NPR.org).

The rescinding of a 2022 memo that prioritized the enforcement of environmental laws in “overburdened and underserved communities” means these areas may receive less attention and protection from environmental violations (NPR.org). The broader implications for environmental monitoring and public health include a potential decrease in funding for essential research, data collection, and community-based initiatives that identify and address environmental hazards. This could lead to a reduced capacity to monitor pollution levels, assess health impacts, and implement effective public health interventions, especially in the communities that need them most.

The Broader Political and Scientific Context

The actions at the EPA reflect a broader political agenda of the Trump administration, which prioritizes deregulation and energy independence, often at the expense of environmental protections and climate action. The administration’s stance is that previous policies, particularly those related to DEI and environmental justice, were “ideological” and diverted the agency from its true purpose (EPA.gov). This perspective creates a fundamental conflict with career scientists and environmental advocates who view these programs as essential for protecting public health and addressing systemic inequalities.

The dissenters accuse the administration of disregarding scientific expertise, which is a critical component of the EPA’s function. The agency’s ability to make informed decisions relies heavily on robust scientific research and data. When scientific consensus is ignored or undermined to benefit polluters, it erodes public trust and compromises the agency’s effectiveness in safeguarding the environment. Ultimately, the ongoing disputes at the EPA highlight a deep ideological divide over the role of government in environmental protection and the importance of addressing environmental racism.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.