Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would undertake a swath of 31 historic deregulatory actions, constituting “the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” according to the EPA.
These rollbacks come amid a flurry of mass layoffs and funding cuts at the EPA that have left some environmental scientists worried about the future of climate policy. Potential policies under the agency’s reconsideration include regulations aimed at reducing air and water pollution.
“I just can’t quite understand what is happening or why it would be happening,” said Scott Frickel, a professor of sociology and environment and society, in an interview with The Herald. “I get the sense that a lot of people … may not understand the unprecedented nature of the attack that’s happening right now.
Frickel, who is also the director of research at the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, noted that the Trump administration seems “willing — and actually eager — to dismantle the research system.”
As a part of the rollbacks, the EPA has initiated a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which legally classifies certain greenhouse gases as harmful to public health. According to an EPA press release, the agency believes this move will balance the agency’s mission to protect the environment with the nation’s economic interests.
The EPA will “follow the science, the law and common sense wherever it leads,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in the press release.
In an interview with The Herald, IBES Director Kim Cobb condemned reconsideration, describing it as “insane” and noting that it “puts Americans squarely in harm’s way.”
By revisiting the Endangerment Finding, the EPA is threatening “decades of well-established science,” she added.
“All of these regulations existed for a reason,” said Meredith Hastings, a professor of environment and society and physical sciences and chair of Earth, environmental and planetary sciences, in an interview with The Herald. While she said the EPA’s regulatory system may not be perfect, Hastings explained that federal oversight has been historically crucial in improving air and water quality at state and local levels.
Frickel expressed a similar sentiment, saying that while he is critical of the EPA, he believes the agency still plays an invaluable role in advancing environmental policy. A complete lack of federal oversight, Frickel said, would be a “worst-case scenario.”
According to Hastings, Rhode Island is uniquely vulnerable to environmental risks — such as rising sea levels and natural disasters like hurricanes — due to its older infrastructure. Low-income communities located close to the state’s various ports have also been disproportionately impacted by high levels of pollution, she added.
But Hastings worries that these federal overhauls will hinder states’ motivations toward reaching set climate goals. Rhode Island, for example, has set goals to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and achieve 100% renewable energy by 2030 — milestones that Hastings believes could be jeopardized by recent developments.
The state must “keep working to try to meet our statewide environmental goals,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told The Herald. But he added that this process is “not going to be easy,” especially in light of the Trump administration’s attacks on offshore wind, controversies surrounding funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and recently announced tariffs.
“I think the big picture here is that the EPA is walking back from, essentially, all of its environmental responsibilities,” Whitehouse said.
Whitehouse also criticized the EPA’s communication regarding the status of funding, claiming that it has been “impossible to get a straight answer.” This view comes amid the uncertain aftermath of the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze in January that has stoked backlash from researchers, universities and state officials.
“Funding for (climate research) has always been difficult to come by, but it will be more difficult now,” Frickel said.
According to the EPA, these deregulatory efforts aim to “unleash American energy,” revitalize jobs in the auto industry and lower costs of living.
But Hastings dispelled the belief that fossil fuels are more cost-effective than renewable energies, noting that while fossil fuels might come with cheaper price tags, the potential consequences of environmental deregulation — such as the higher health care costs that might result from increased greenhouse gas pollution — could prove more costly.
If the Trump administration wanted to pursue an “America-first, economy-forward agenda,” it should be “leaning into the science of climate change” instead, Cobb said.
“In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families across the country and will continue to do so this term,” an EPA spokesperson wrote in an email to The Herald.
“This is a very important change from the previous administration’s attempts to shut down American energy and make our citizens more reliant on foreign fossil fuels,” the EPA spokesperson added.
At Brown, IBES is in “proactive mode,” Cobb said. Moving forward, she hopes to build community by lifting “up the immense value of what we do every single day in new ways, to new ears, across new channels, and have it add up to more than the sum of its parts.”
The Trump administration took office just over 70 days ago, Frickel noted, adding that it is “too early to know for what’s going to happen.”
“It’s a tidal wave. It hasn’t quite happened yet, but the storm is beginning to crash on the shore,” he added.
Zach Robel is a Senior Staff Writer from Corvallis, Oregon, studying economics and environmental studies at Brown.
Megan is a metro editor covering health and environment. Born and raised in Hong Kong, she spends her free time drinking coffee and wishing she was Meg Ryan in a Nora Ephron movie.
