Significantly fewer peer-reviewed studies are being produced by scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following substantial staff reductions since President Trump began his second term. This information comes from a new analysis by the nonprofit organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer).<\/p>\n
The group has published data indicating that the EPA generated 275 peer-reviewed studies in 2025, marking a decrease of 19% from 2024. So far this year, the agency’s scientists have created 61 peer-reviewed publications, which Peer estimates would place the EPA on course to produce 163 peer-reviewed publications by the conclusion of 2026. This would signify a drop of over 40% in the number of such studies produced this year relative to last year, and nearly 52% compared to 2024.<\/p>\n
‘These figures indicate a reduction in scientific contributions from the fewer, remaining EPA scientists,’ remarked Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney who serves as Peer\u2019s science policy director and previously worked at the EPA. ‘It seems as if the EPA is intent on diminishing the totality of human knowledge.’<\/p>\n
Bennett labeled the trend as a ‘withdrawal from published research’ and voiced concerns that it would have ‘a self-reinforcing effect’ potentially resulting in fewer young scientists entering the EPA, noting that scientific careers depend on published research. ‘The overall consequence is that the scientific contribution of the EPA towards a better understanding of factors affecting human health and the environment will be reduced,’ she stated.<\/p>\n
The EPA\u2019s workforce has experienced significant reductions during Trump\u2019s current presidential term. According to the latest federal workforce data, the agency lost 3000 employees between the financial years 2025 and 2026, which constitutes about 20% of the agency’s total workforce.<\/p>\n
Some of these layoffs occurred after hundreds of EPA employees signed a dissent letter last summer, many opting to remain anonymous, in opposition to numerous policies of the Trump administration, including the dismantling of the EPA Office of Research and Development, which had underpinned the agency\u2019s science-based regulations and policies for many years.<\/p>\n
Peer estimates that at least 15 EPA employees connected to the dissent letter were terminated by the agency, with roughly one-third of them being scientists. Most of the signatories received 14-day unpaid suspensions, as stated by the organization.<\/p>\n
In a similar vein, records from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238 \u2013 the union that represents around 8000 EPA employees \u2013 reveal that six of its members, who were probationary employees at the agency, were dismissed, three of whom were scientists, alongside 10 other tenured EPA employees under AFGE 238 who were fired, five of whom were scientists. The union is pursuing legal action against the government over these dismissals, claiming that the disciplinary measures and terminations were unlawful and infringed upon the workers\u2019 First Amendment rights to free speech.<\/p>\n
Employees at other US research agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, also expressed dissent through similar letters last summer. However, Peer notes that the EPA appears to be the only agency that has enacted formal disciplinary measures against these dissenters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Significantly fewer peer-reviewed studies are being produced by scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following substantial staff reductions since President Trump began his second term. This information comes from a new analysis by the nonprofit organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer). The group has published data indicating that the EPA generated 275 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":372330,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[174],"class_list":["post-372329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-source-chemistryworld-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=372329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372329\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/372330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=372329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=372329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=372329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}