On October 20 and 21, 2025, environmental agencies on both sides of the Pacific found themselves at the heart of sweeping job cuts, sparking debate about the future of environmental protection and the role of government in safeguarding public health and natural resources. In the United States, the Trump administration moved to slash federal jobs across two key environmental and conservation agencies, while in Australia, the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA) announced an 8 percent workforce reduction as part of a major restructure. The timing and rationale for these cuts varied, but the implications for environmental oversight and scientific research are far-reaching.
According to Inside Climate News, the Trump administration’s decision targeted employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior—two agencies central to enforcing anti-pollution laws and conducting scientific research. EPA staff received a new round of furlough notices as funding dried up amid the ongoing government shutdown. Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior disclosed plans to permanently cut more than 2,000 positions, a move detailed in a court filing by its chief personnel officer.
The specifics are stark: the Interior Department intends to eliminate 2,050 positions, with most of the planned cuts hitting the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service regional offices, and Interior’s main headquarters. These agencies manage national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. They also fulfill trust obligations to Alaska Natives and Native American tribes and conduct crucial scientific research on endangered species, water resources, and natural hazards—think flooding and wildfires—that help officials respond more effectively to disasters.
Of particular concern are the research positions that would be especially hard hit. Projects focused on the Great Lakes ecosystems and the USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center in Missouri, where scientists study toxic contaminants such as PFAS (a class of chemicals that have been linked to health risks), are among those at risk. Ironically, PFAS contamination is an issue that Trump’s own health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has pledged to address.
The Interior Department layoffs were planned before the government shutdown began, a detail that directly contradicts President Donald Trump’s recent claim that government layoffs stemmed from the shutdown itself. In fact, the administration’s intent to reduce the federal workforce appears to be a long-standing goal. The White House, when asked for comment, referred all questions to the Interior Department, which did not respond, Inside Climate News reported.
Environmental groups described the move as part of a broader campaign by Trump and his administration to eliminate research and data collection on environmental contamination. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has called the rollback “the largest in U.S. history.” Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, minced no words: “This plan would eviscerate the core science that every American depends on,” she stated. Rokala warned that the planned cuts “would devastate scientific research across the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, and Great Lakes,” while harming workers who “make our parks and public lands the envy of the world.” She also raised concerns that the filing only revealed planned layoffs for unionized employees, leaving open the question of how many non-union positions might also be at risk.
At the EPA, the new furlough notices arrived as the agency’s funding dried up. President Trump has repeatedly cast environmental protection, conservation, and related public health issues as “woke” and left-wing, despite the fact that many key environmental protections—and the EPA itself—date back to the Republican Nixon administration. J.W. Glass, an EPA policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, offered a sharp critique: “Only Trump’s EPA would lay off the people who protect our kids from breathing polluted air and drinking contaminated water but keep the pesticide office open to greenlight more poisons.” Glass accused the administration of using the shutdown to dismantle the EPA, leaving “our communities paying the price.”
The EPA, for its part, pushed back against these accusations. Press secretary Carolyn Holran said in a written statement that the suggestion the furloughs are part of a deliberate campaign to dismantle the EPA “is both inaccurate and unfair to the dedicated EPA employees who continue working to protect human health and the environment.” Holran blamed Democrats for the government shutdown and said the agency was taking a “calculated approach” to ensure it could “deliver on Presidential priorities and avoid actions that directly impact or harm the American people.” When pressed for details about the number of furlough notices sent and which offices were affected, Holran reportedly called it “a ridiculous question to ask.”
Peter Murchie, senior director at the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network and a former EPA official, urged Congress to intervene and stop what he called the “systematic dismantling” of the agency. “The health harms facing American families—cancer, childhood asthma, infertility, organ failure—don’t pause for politics,” Murchie said. “When EPA’s expert staff are sent home, large parts of the agency’s work simply stop.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, the NSW EPA’s chief executive Tony Chappel revealed on October 21, 2025, that 69 permanent jobs and six senior executive roles would be cut from the agency’s 885 permanent staff, as detailed in an internal staff memo following a town hall meeting. Contract positions are also set to be axed under a proposed restructure expected to be implemented early in 2026. The move, reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, is part of the NSW Labor government’s policy to reduce public-sector executive roles by 15 percent.
Chappel’s memo explained that the restructure aims to centralize some functions, such as licensing, cut unnecessary duplication of roles, and bolster frontline regulatory and compliance capabilities. “As the state’s independent environmental regulator, we need to change the way we operate to better deliver on our significant responsibilities, including the recent strengthening of environmental protections across the state,” Chappel wrote. “We also need to ensure a financially sustainable EPA model to meet budget targets.” The estimated savings from the job cuts are around $20 million, according to a source familiar with the agency’s budgetary pressures.
These cuts are not happening in isolation. The NSW government has also announced 950 white-collar job cuts in the transport department, expected to save $600 million, and 165 staff cuts in the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. The latter department’s secretary, Steve Orr, described the decision as “challenging” and “not taken lightly,” but necessary given the department’s rapid growth in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, floods, and bushfires.
Both in the U.S. and Australia, these sweeping job cuts raise pressing questions about the capacity of environmental agencies to fulfill their mandates in the face of mounting environmental challenges. As governments grapple with budget constraints and shifting political priorities, the future of environmental protection—and the scientists and regulators who make it possible—remains uncertain.
For now, the fate of these agencies and the communities they serve hangs in the balance, with advocates and critics alike watching closely to see whether cost-saving measures will come at too high a price for the environment and public health.
