In a sweeping move that has sent shockwaves through environmental circles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has dismantled its Office of Research and Development (ORD), a cornerstone of independent scientific research for over 50 years. Announced in July 2025, this decision marks one of the most significant shifts in federal environmental policy in recent memory, raising alarms about the future of environmental protection in California and across the nation.
The EPA’s ORD, established alongside the agency in 1970, has long been the backbone of research that informs regulations on air and water quality, chemical safety, and climate change mitigation. Its scientists have played critical roles in responding to environmental disasters, from wildfires in California to train derailments in Ohio, providing data essential for safeguarding public health and ecosystems.
However, as part of a cost-saving “reduction in force” announced on July 18, 2025, the EPA plans to eliminate nearly 4,000 employees, predominantly from ORD, cutting the agency’s workforce from 16,155 employees in January 2025 to 12,448. The move is projected to save approximately $750 million but has been met with fierce criticism. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the changes, stating they will “ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback,” emphasizing responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Yet, experts and environmental advocates warn that the dissolution of ORD and the reassignment of its functions under a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions — which reports directly to Administrator Zeldin — threatens to politicize scientific research and weaken the agency’s capacity to protect communities. Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), explained that ORD’s independence was crucial to shield research from political interference, a safeguard now lost as the new office’s direct reporting line to the Administrator invites potential manipulation.
“EPA can be politically susceptible,” Bennett noted, highlighting that while other EPA offices have experienced industry influence, ORD was designed to operate independently. She warned that, despite the retention of EPA labs mandated by statute, the researchers will now be vulnerable to political pressures, undermining the integrity of environmental science.
The impact of these changes extends well beyond federal bureaucracy. California officials have expressed grave concerns about how these federal cuts imperil the state’s ambitious environmental goals. The state, known for leading the nation in clean energy and environmental standards, now faces challenges in wildfire response, water resource management, and clean energy advancement due to reduced federal support.
Patrick Wright, Director of California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, highlighted that a 10% staffing cut to the U.S. Forest Service — the nation’s largest firefighting entity — has eliminated many critical support roles. Additionally, the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget threatens to cut top scientists from the Forest Service and open millions of acres of national forestland, including all 18 of California’s national forests, to timber production. Wright cautioned that focusing solely on timber risks losing sight of protecting communities and preventing wildfires.
Karla Nemeth, Director of the California Department of Water Resources, reported that the federal U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project and flood protections, has lost over a quarter of its workforce and faces a potential 33% budget cut. These reductions jeopardize vital water infrastructure projects essential to California’s water security.
California State Parks Director Armando Quintero revealed that the National Park Service could face a $1 billion budget cut, with a 24% staff reduction since January 2025. Over 100 superintendent positions remain vacant, leading to canceled tours, campground closures, and reduced park hours across California’s nine national parks. The state’s 18 national forests are also losing staff, with the regional office potentially being eliminated.
Meanwhile, the state’s coastal protection efforts are threatened by the cancellation of nearly $870 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities grant program. Jenn Eckerle, Deputy Secretary for Oceans and Coastal Policy at the California Natural Resources Agency, warned that these losses will hamper California’s ability to respond to climate impacts such as sea level rise and marine heat waves, with dire consequences for coastal ecosystems and economies.
Perhaps most alarming to California’s clean energy future are the Trump administration’s moves to end long-standing tax credits for renewable energy projects. Robert Chun, Chief of Staff to the Chair of the California Energy Commission, explained that tax credits now only apply to projects placed into service by December 2027 or that start construction by July 2026. The administration is also canceling $3.7 billion in awards from the Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, with at least $800 million initially earmarked for California. The office’s staff has been slashed from about 250 to 35 employees.
These changes threaten the viability of 11 solar projects and one onshore wind project in California, potentially delaying or canceling them. Sean Gallagher, Senior Vice President of Policy for the Solar Energy Industries Association, warned that up to 35,700 solar jobs and 25 manufacturing facilities in the state could be at risk. The California Energy Commission noted that repealing tax credits will likely lead to higher future electricity rates for consumers.
Governor Gavin Newsom defended California’s progress, stating that its electric grid runs on a mix of renewables an average of seven hours a day, making it “the fourth largest economy in the world running on more clean energy than ever before.” He dismissed efforts to roll back clean energy policies as attempts to revive “the days of dirty coal,” affirming that “the future is cheap, abundant clean energy.”
Yet, industry leaders argue that California’s regulatory hurdles and insufficient funding have slowed clean energy development. They emphasize the urgency of accelerating environmental reviews, project approvals, and procurement efforts to meet growing electricity demand, especially from data centers powering artificial intelligence.
On the science front, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is stepping up to fill the void left by the EPA’s ORD closure. OEHHA, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has long conducted robust research into toxic chemicals and pollutants, underpinning the state’s stringent environmental standards, such as Proposition 65 warnings.
Kris Thayer, OEHHA’s director and a former ORD leader, acknowledged that while California is better positioned than most states, the loss of ORD’s independent assessments will reduce both the quantity and credibility of research. She warned of increased political interference and the challenge of meeting the heightened demand for scientific evaluation.
California Secretary for Environmental Protection Yana Garcia described the dismantling of ORD as a “huge loss,” particularly for states lacking similar agencies. The state has hired several former EPA scientists and remains open to absorbing more, aiming to maintain its science-based approach to environmental protection.
Yet, experts like Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, and Tracey Woodruff, a UC San Francisco professor and former EPA scientist, caution that the federal retreat from independent research leaves Americans more vulnerable to environmental hazards. Woodruff warned of inevitable future disasters and increased exposure to pollutants without the scientific foundation ORD provided.
The ramifications of these federal cuts are profound and far-reaching. From the erosion of scientific independence and the weakening of environmental safeguards to the jeopardizing of California’s clean energy ambitions and natural resource management, the consequences will unfold over years. As Bennett put it, without ORD’s research, Americans will be “flying blind,” facing slow but sure increases in illnesses, water scarcity, smog, and climate-related disasters.
In this challenging landscape, California’s resolve to lead on environmental protection and clean energy will be tested. The state’s efforts to bolster its own scientific capacity and accelerate renewable projects may serve as a blueprint for others. But the loss of federal leadership and investment underscores the urgent need for vigilance, innovation, and collaboration to safeguard health and the environment in an era of political and fiscal uncertainty.
