Congress Is Gutting EPA Science and Putting Your Family's Health in Danger

In the halls of Congress, a dangerous proposal is gaining traction, one that could unravel decades of progress in protecting Americans from toxic chemicals. Two bills, known collectively as the No IRIS Act, aim to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to use critical scientific assessments from the Integrated Risk Information System. This isn’t just bureaucratic reshuffling; it’s a deliberate move to weaken the guardrails that keep our air, water, and communities safe from harm.

At the same time, plans from the current administration to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the agency’s scientific backbone, signal an even broader assault. These efforts, cloaked in claims of efficiency, threaten to silence the independent science that has long guided our nation’s environmental protections. For those of us who value clean air and safe drinking water, this feels like a betrayal of the public trust.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside 13 other state attorneys general, has sounded the alarm, urging Congress to reject these proposals. Their letter lays bare the stakes: without the EPA’s scientific resources, states like California, which rely on these tools to set cleanup standards and regulate pollutants, will struggle to protect residents from cancer-causing chemicals and other hazards. This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s about the health of our children and the future of our planet.

Yet, the push to gut these programs moves forward, driven by a familiar alliance of industry lobbyists and lawmakers eager to prioritize profits over people. The question is whether we’ll let them succeed or demand that science, not special interests, shapes our environmental future.

The Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is not some obscure government program. It’s a cornerstone of public health, providing peer-reviewed assessments that determine how much exposure to toxic chemicals, like those found in industrial runoff or wildfire smoke, is safe for humans. These assessments guide everything from drinking water standards to hazardous waste cleanups, ensuring that communities aren’t left vulnerable to cancer, birth defects, or respiratory illnesses.

Similarly, the Office of Research and Development serves as the EPA’s scientific engine, conducting research that informs responses to crises like the Flint water contamination or the air quality fallout after 9/11. States, especially those with limited resources, depend on this work to set regulations and protect their residents. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, for instance, uses IRIS data to determine cleanup standards for contaminated sites, ensuring that neighborhoods aren’t left with lingering toxins.

Without these programs, the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mission, grounded in laws like the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, would be gutted. The ripple effects would hit hardest in low-income and minority communities, where pollution exposure is already disproportionately high. The science from IRIS and ORD has saved countless lives by preventing asthma attacks, premature deaths, and developmental disorders. To dismantle them now is to turn our backs on those who need protection most.

Supporters of the No IRIS Act, backed by chemical and fossil fuel industries, argue that the EPA’s science is flawed, overly cautious, or too costly for businesses. They claim IRIS assessments exaggerate risks and that barring their use would streamline regulations without harming public health. This argument, echoed in the broader Project 2025 agenda, paints the EPA as a bureaucratic obstacle to economic growth, demanding transparency while conveniently ignoring the rigorous peer-review process already in place.

This isn’t a new tactic. Since the Reagan era, industry groups have pushed to weaken environmental regulations by questioning the science behind them. The No IRIS Act follows this playbook, seeking to replace independent assessments with industry-friendly data or, worse, no data at all. The result? Regulatory decisions swayed by profit motives rather than public health needs. Courts have consistently upheld the EPA’s reliance on peer-reviewed science, yet these bills aim to bypass that precedent, leaving states and communities without the tools to fight back.

The claim that IRIS and ORD are unaccountable is equally hollow. These programs operate under strict scientific standards, with input from advisory boards and public comment periods. The real issue, it seems, is that their findings often inconvenience powerful industries. By attacking the science, these bills aim to erode the foundation of environmental law, making it easier to roll back protections that have taken decades to build.

If the No IRIS Act passes, the consequences will be immediate and far-reaching. Without IRIS assessments, the EPA will struggle to set safe limits for toxic chemicals, leaving regulators in the dark about risks like PFAS contamination or air pollution from wildfires. States, already stretched thin, will face impossible choices: divert scarce resources to replicate federal research or accept weaker standards that put residents at risk.

The plan to dissolve the Office of Research and Development is even more alarming. Firing over 1,000 scientists, as proposed, would decimate the EPA’s ability to study emerging threats or respond to environmental disasters. This isn’t just about budget cuts; it’s about dismantling the expertise needed to protect our drinking water, monitor air quality, and address climate-driven challenges. The loss of this capacity would echo for generations, leaving us less equipped to face a warming world.

History offers a stark warning. Before the EPA’s creation in 1970, environmental protections varied widely by state, often leaving communities at the mercy of polluters. The federal government stepped in to provide a consistent, science-based framework, and programs like IRIS and ORD became its backbone. Undermining them now risks returning us to a fragmented, inequitable system where only the wealthy and well-connected are shielded from harm.

The fight to protect the EPA’s scientific programs is a fight for our health, our communities, and our future. State attorneys general, environmental advocates, and public health experts are rallying to stop these bills, and they need our voices to amplify their message. Congress must hear that Americans value clean air, safe water, and the science that makes those possible. We cannot let industry interests dictate the terms of our survival.

This moment demands courage and clarity. Rejecting the No IRIS Act and preserving the Office of Research and Development isn’t just about maintaining the status quo; it’s about doubling down on the science that keeps us safe. For the sake of our children, our neighbors, and the planet we share, we must stand firm. The alternative, a world where profit trumps truth, is one we cannot afford to accept.