摘要：The Trump administration has undertaken an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency critical to environmental health. This assault has precedents in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The early Reagan administration (1981–1983) launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts, whereas the George W. Bush administration (2001–2008) adopted a subtler approach, undermining science-based policy. The current administration combines both these strategies and operates in a political context more favorable to its designs on the EPA. The Republican Party has shifted right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress. Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in pushing deregulation. Among the public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted. For these reasons, the effects of today’s ongoing regulatory delays, rollbacks, and staff cuts may well surpass those of the administrations of Reagan and Bush, whose impacts on environmental health were considerable. In less than a year, the Trump administration has overturned or delayed dozens of regulations of, proposed massive budget cuts for, and reduced staff and enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of a broad challenge to existing US environmental health policy. This approach is not without historical precedent. Comparison with similar initiatives during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush sheds light on the roots of the Trump assault, while clarifying what is new about it. The early Reagan administration (1981–1983) launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts, whereas the George W. Bush administration (2001–2008) adopted a subtler approach, undermining science-based policy. The Trump administration combines both these strategies. It also operates in an institutional and cultural context that is more favorable to the new administration’s designs on an agency critical to the nation’s environmental health. In this history, we suggest a difficult period ahead and offer hope for sustaining this agency’s role in protecting environmental health. We focus on the EPA because the Trump administration has targeted it and because the EPA is the primary federal regulator of environmental health. Other agencies also deal with environmental health, but less centrally, and many do not make and enforce regulations. None produces as many regulations with as many environmental health benefits as the EPA. 1 We used secondary sources, newspapers, government documents, and 54 interviews with current and former EPA employees conducted by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI). EDGI identified interviewees through preexisting relationships, responses to an alumni association invitation, and snowball sampling. Approximately half had or still worked primarily at the District of Columbia headquarters, two fifths at regional offices, and the rest split time between headquarters and regions. Interviewees worked across a broad range of agency offices and had a range of professional backgrounds. Our questions concerned presidential transitions, workplace morale, and the politics of science and policy in the agency. 2 Attacks on the EPA are especially concerning because of the strong connection between the agency’s activities and public health. The EPA’s hazardous waste, drinking water, and air pollution regulations have reduced many health problems, including cancer, reproductive problems, fetal toxicity, lowered IQ, heart attacks, asthma, and numerous other cardiovascular, respiratory, and chronic health conditions. From air pollution control alone, economists have estimated enormous benefits over time, including an estimated $50 to $400 billion in benefits between 1970 and 2000 and $2 trillion in benefits since 1990. 3 Despite these benefits, the new administration is convinced that the EPA needs to be brought to heel. Current conditions favor its resolve in ways that those in earlier decades did not. The Republican Party has shifted to the right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress (unlike in the early Reagan administration). Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in fighting regulation. In the broader public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted. For these reasons, the effects of today’s ongoing regulatory delays, rollbacks, and staff cuts may well surpass those of the administrations of Reagan and Bush, whose impacts on environmental health were considerable.
