Every four years, as presidential elections draw near, the political appointees driving the incumbent administration's regulatory agenda put their feet on the gas, working to cover as much ground as they can before their boss's term is up. It makes no difference whether the current White House occupant is running for reelection or heading off into presidential library-land; they all want to get as much done while they control the steering wheel.
The one thing that usually constrains them, particularly first-termers, is the politics of the moment. Candidates for reelection aren't interested in seeing their agencies promulgate rules that will inflame opposition, and retiring presidents worry a lot about their legacy and aren't so eager to tarnish it with firestorm-inducing midnight regulations. That, at least, has been the norm. But as with so many other things about the Trump administration, standard rules don't apply. And so, we're seeing a spasm of bad regulating as November draws near. For Trump, gutting health and safety protections and inflaming opposition is all perfectly on brand.
One of several such initiatives his administration has undertaken is one with particularly far-reaching effects because it seeks to tie the hands of regulators seeking to protect health and the environment well into the future. With its proposed "censored science" rule, quite misleadingly advertised as having to do with strengthening transparency, the EPA would make it harder for future agency administrators to develop standards to protect public health and the environment by barring the consideration of much of the science that usually undergirds such rules.
Among other things, the rule would require the public release of underlying data for studies that regulators considered while developing proposed regulations. That would knock out the many studies that shield data because doing otherwise would reveal personal health information about study participants. Since public health considerations are supposed to be a primary concern for EPA – when regulating the effects of air pollution, water pollution, toxics, etc. – the inclusion of data about health impacts is critical.
Knocking such studies out of the process is not a bug in the rule, of course; it's the point. The Trump EPA wants to eliminate as much sound science as it can, so it can rely instead on industry-manufactured pseudo-science. And by imposing a rule to accomplish as much, EPA's current administrator, coal-industry alum Andrew Wheeler, hopes to box in his successors.
EPA has been working on its censored science rule since before former Administrator Scott Pruitt left in disgrace in 2018, and formal comments on its latest proposal are due in mid-May. CPR plans to submit comments then, covering the broad scope of the proposal's many failings, among them that it will prioritize studies with publicly available data over those that meet the highest scientific standards, and that by opening the door to reevaluating long-since-adopted rules by the new standards, EPA will spend precious staff resources reanalyzing peer-reviewed research and weakening existing rules rather than focusing on new and emerging hazards. None of that promotes transparency, EPA's asserted interest.
Earlier this week, CPR's James Goodwin participated in a virtual public hearing conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, in which he focused on one particular aspect of the rule: EPA's lack of legal authority to issue it.
When CPR submits its comments in May, we'll be sure to highlight them in this space. Meantime, you can read James Goodwin's testimony on the rule's AWOL legal underpinnings, here.
Showing 2,883 results
Matthew Freeman | April 17, 2020
On April 14, CPR's James Goodwin took part in a virtual hearing, hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, on the EPA's "censored science" rule, an effort by EPA to exclude from its rulemaking process a range of scientific studies that industry finds uncongenial to its anti-regulatory views. In his testimony, Goodwin dismantles EPA's contention that the rule is grounded in law, observing that there are no credible legal underpinnings for the proposal.
Darya Minovi | April 16, 2020
On April 29, the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) will host a webinar to discuss the public health and policy implications of COVID-19 and to highlight the many policy parallels between the pandemic and climate change. Speakers include Daniel Farber, JD, of UC Berkeley (and a CPR Member Scholar); Monica Schoch-Spana, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School. Join us!
Laurie Ristino | April 15, 2020
Americans are experiencing a tidal wave of food insecurity related to the coronavirus pandemic. Historic unemployment claims and surging demand at food banks are laying bare the precarious circumstances of many of our citizens and the inadequacy of our social safety net. We can learn from the coronavirus epidemic--and we must in order to prevent human suffering in the future. Taking stock and then reforming our policies should start now while legislative momentum is possible--not after the country has moved past the apex of the disease. In a recent episode of the podcast, Good Law/Bad Law, Laurie Ristino joined host Aaron Freiwald to discuss the vital connection between the 2018 Farm Bill, the pandemic, and the startling food insecurity so many Americans are now facing.
Thomas McGarity, Wendy Wagner | April 13, 2020
Over the last month, the scripts of the daily White House COVID-19 briefings have followed a familiar pattern: President Trump leads off with assurances that the crisis remains “totally under control” and that miracle cures are just around the corner. Then agency experts come to the microphone and tell a very different story. For example, on March 19, the president reported that the Food and Drug Administration “very, very quickly” approved a malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, for treating COVID-19 that it had previously approved for lupus, malaria, and rheumatoid arthritis. Later in the briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the long-time head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, cautioned listeners that controlled testing would have to be completed before we know whether the drug works on the novel coronavirus. And FDA later warned that it had definitely not approved hydroxychloroquine for fighting the virus.
Rena Steinzor | April 10, 2020
If you were the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as news of the coronavirus pandemic hit, what would you do to implement your mission to protect public health? The best answer has three parts: first, determine what specific categories of pollution could exacerbate the disease; second, assemble staff experts to develop lists of companies that produce that pollution; and, third, figure out how the federal government could ensure that companies do their best to mitigate emissions.
James Goodwin | April 9, 2020
Who does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) work for? The answer would seem to be us, the American public, given that the statutes it is charged with implementing are focused first and foremost on protecting our health and the natural environment we all depend upon. The Trump administration, however, has transformed this critical protector agency into a powerful of tool of corporate polluters, one dedicated to fattening these industries’ already healthy bottom lines at the expense of the broader public interest. The evidence of this brazen degree of corporate capture at the Trump EPA abounds.
Katie Tracy | April 9, 2020
On April 9, the Center for Progressive Reform joined the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health in calling on the U.S. Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) to retract its outrageous guidance that allows employers to send workers potentially exposed to coronavirus back to work without any guaranteed protections. This flawed guidance is weaker than previous guidance, fails to protect workers, and is not based on scientific evidence.
Joel A. Mintz | April 8, 2020
It has often been observed that natural disasters bring out the best and worst in people. Sadly, with regard to environmental protection, the coronavirus pandemic has brought out the worst in the Trump administration. Using the pandemic as a pretext, Trump's EPA has continued to propose and implement substantial rollbacks in important safeguards to our health and the environment while issuing an unduly lax enforcement policy. In a memorandum issued March 26, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance announced a "temporary" policy governing EPA enforcement during the pandemic. It declares the agency will now not seek civil penalties when pollution sources violate "routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training and reporting or certification obligations" as a result of COVID-19.
David Driesen | April 8, 2020
Last week, Hungarian President Viktor Orbán used the coronavirus as an excuse to secure emergency legislation giving him permanent dictatorial powers. President Trump has long admired Orbán and emulated the democracy-undermining strategies that brought Hungary to this point — demonizing opponents; seeking bogus corruption investigations against opposition politicians; using vicious rhetoric, economic pressures, and licensing threats to undermine independent media; and whipping up hatred of immigrants. Trump's autocratic approach to expertise has facilitated the spread of the coronavirus, as he dismantled the apparatus in place to prepare for and deal with a pandemic and caused leading experts to resign, and he has repeatedly used White House coronavirus briefings to blunt needed public health warnings by substituting his imagined "common sense" for the advice of actual experts.