Trump Eager to Cut EPA Budget by 24 Percent

It may be time to add the Environmental Protection Agency to the endangered list. Sources from inside the White House say that President Donald Trump is planning to reduce the EPA’s budget by a stunning 24 percent.

The fallout would be massive. Roughly 20 percent of the EPA’s current staffers would lose their jobs to make these cuts, reducing the number of workers from 15,000 to 12,000.

Considering how pivotal the condition of the environment is to the future of the United States, the EPA is arguably already underfunded at just $8 billion. Dropping that figure to just over $6 billion is irresponsible.

In fact, that would leave the EPA with its lowest budget in the past 25 years. Moreover, you’d have to go all the way back to the 1980s to find a time when the EPA employed fewer people. Our scientific understanding of the need to protect the planet has increased exponentially since those times, and that should be reflected in the strength of the EPA.

Trump’s excuse for cutting the EPA’s budget is that he needs to free up money to cover the $54 billion increase in defense spending that he’s promoting. However, the need for this is dubious as the United States already allocates more money to the military than most other top world powers do combined.

Congress will have to approve Trump’s suggested cut for it to take effect, but it seems like it will stand a good chance given that the Republicans who control Congress have already demonstrated a proclivity for tearing up environmental protections in recent weeks. Most notably, Representative Matt Gaetz has proposed a bill, HR 861, which would eliminate the EPA entirely.

A more detailed look at the White House’s plan shows which programs with the EPA are vulnerable. The proposal would cut grant money for clean water and air programs by 30 percent, and eliminate nearly 40 other programs completely, including climate change initiatives, environmental justice programs and plans for hazardous waste sites.

Even Scott Pruitt, the current head of the EPA who has sued the EPA over a dozen times in the past, says he doesn’t want to see all of those programs cut. However, he is content with decreasing the scope of the EPA, saying its better to focus on a few key issues rather than bogging states down with lots of environmental regulations.

Pruitt would not confirm whether or not climate change would be one of those key issues.

Photo credit: Thinkstock


Marie W
Marie W1 years ago

Thanks for posting.

Sarah Hill
Sarah Hill1 years ago

The EPA has taken entirely too much power.

Melania Padilla
Melania Padilla1 years ago

At this point in humanity history we cannot afford to have an ignorant president running a country so responsible for the damage to the environment; it should be off the table, period. Shame, shame.

Carl R
Carl R2 years ago


Carl R
Carl R2 years ago


Brian F
Brian F2 years ago

This fraud Trump who lies about climate change would rather cut the EPA, than cut the military, even though the USA spends more than every country combined. If this moron Trump had a brain, he would know that the USA also has more military bases than the world combined, and it could cut most of it's 900 military bases, and use that money to fund the EPA. Unfortunately like all republicans and corporate fake democrats, Trump is an imbecile, and thinks money is more important than our environment.

darcia hurst
darcia hurst2 years ago

This is so wrong! We need to be good Stewarts of the planet, plants, @ animals!

Roslyn McBride
Roslyn M2 years ago

Is there anything useful this man MIGHT actually do?


Oh God it's not all about us........humans......and's about a healthy and livable environment which includes all species. Thanks for sharing.

Dan Blossfeld
Dan Blossfeld2 years ago

Herbert C.,
Thanks. I found the same thing. Amazing how misinformation can be spread and manipulated so easily. A better analysis can be found here:

In 2015, the total U.S. federal subsidy allocated to the oil & gas industry was $18 billion. Almost $4 billion of that was set aside for limited partnerships, which are not the large energy conglomerates, but smaller independent wells. Compare that to the estimates $6 billion in renewable energy subsides. Then consider that renewables account for 10-15% of the total energy produced in the U.S. Renewables are subsidized by a third of the amount, but only produce one eighth of the total.