Seven former EPA NY heads say budget cuts undermine agency
Thank you for tuning into Environmental Protection Network News. The proposed budget cuts to the EPA would have a devastating impact on our environment, human health and environmental justice work. Seven EPN volunteers came together to publish an op ed urging congress to reject the proposal and highlighting the specific areas in which the cuts would impact.
Seven former EPA NY heads say budget cuts undermine agency
By: Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 administrators Jerry Hanler (Nixon administration), Charles “Chuck” Warren (Carter administration), Jeanne M. Fox (Clinton administration), Alan J. Steinberg (George W. Bush administration), Jane M. Kenny (George W. Bush administration), Judith Enck (Obama administration), and Lisa F. Garcia (Biden administration)
Congress created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with a clear and unambiguous mandate: to protect public health and the environment. For over five decades, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, that mission has been reinforced through bipartisan legislation to clean up hazardous waste, improve air and water quality, and assist states, territories, and tribal nations in safeguarding their communities. Congress also provided the EPA with funding, never excessive but historically sufficient, to fulfill those legal responsibilities.
Today, that foundation is under grave threat nationwide. The proposed 55% cut to EPA’s budget would reduce the agency’s capacity to its lowest level since its founding in 1970, at a time when environmental emergencies are becoming more frequent and more severe. From the catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles, to the recent deadly tornadoes in Kentucky and Oklahoma, to hurricanes like Helene that ravaged the East Coast, communities across the country rely on EPA’s expertise in emergency response, air and water monitoring, hazardous materials management, and environmental recovery. These are not regional concerns; they are national imperatives. Drastically reducing EPA’s funding undermines not only the mandate to provide clean air and clean water but also the government’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively when disaster strikes.
Here in Region 2, which includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and eight federally recognized tribal nations, EPA’s work has been central to health, safety, and environmental progress. EPA has helped clean up toxic Superfund sites like the Hudson River and the Raritan River, restored safe drinking water access in cities like Newark and San Juan, and supported air quality improvements that have reduced asthma rates and premature deaths. These aren’t abstractions; they are measurable public health and environmental victories.
But, they depend on federal funding and expertise. The proposed budget would slash $2.46 billion from the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, stalling long-overdue repairs to aging pipes in schools, homes, and hospitals. Drastic cuts to the Office of Research and Development would undermine the science that guides environmental policy. Eliminating the Environmental Justice program would turn a blind eye to communities long burdened by pollution.
Some argue that states should simply take on more of this responsibility. But, EPA was never designed to replace the states; it was built to support them. EPA provides technical assistance, enforcement backing, and funding for state and territory-run programs. Pulling federal support out from under states and territories won’t streamline regulation. It will leave communities with weaker protections, inconsistent enforcement, and fewer avenues for accountability.
President Trump’s recent claim that pollution has “zero impact” reflects a deep misunderstanding of both science and governance. Pollution has real, well-documented effects on human health, from cancer and developmental disorders to respiratory illness and premature death. EPA exists because Congress recognized that the consequences of pollution cross state lines and demand a national response.
Congress now faces a critical decision. Will it honor its own environmental laws by funding the agency charged with enforcing them? Or will it impose cuts that prevent EPA from doing what it was created to do?
We urge Congress to reject the proposed FY2026 budget cuts and restore full funding to EPA. Environmental protection isn’t partisan; it’s a matter of law, of science, and of basic public duty. Undermining the EPA won’t eliminate the costs of pollution. It will simply shift those costs to communities through higher health care bills, degraded ecosystems, and long-term harm to our children’s futures.
Congress set the mission. It must now stand up and continue to provide the means to fulfill it.