The Intelligence Review | volume 2 | issue 3 |

Agreement withdrawal with severe reductions to the size and power of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA is an American government agency with the stated mission of “protecting human
health and the environment”. It has defined its Congressional mandate as ensuring —
among other things— “that federal laws protecting the environment are enforced fairly and
effectively, that environmental protection is an integral consideration in US policies, and
that the US plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the environment”
(EPA 2017). The EPA has the authority to develop environmental regulations and enforce
them by way of civil or criminal litigation. Furthermore, it is one of the largest environmental
research agencies in America. As such, it was one of the most important agencies in the
country when it came to its ability to implement the Paris Climate Agreement.
In January 2017, the Trump administration took its first action against the EPA by ordering
a freeze of all EPA-related grants and contracts, effectively stopping the agency’s core
operations. The administration explained its actions as a way to ensure that its officials had
a clear understanding of all activities currently underway by the agency. The head of the
EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, stated that it was “trying to freeze things to make sure
nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward,
contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first” (Merica 2017). That
same month, two hundred investors with over $2 trillion in assets, as well as some
of America’s largest companies that collectively employ nearly 2 million people and take in
an annual revenue of $1.15 trillion, signed an open letter to the Trump Administration
(Gensler 2017). The letter underscored the companies’ support for environmental
protection and the Paris Agreement. This move by prominent American businesses had
an almost immediate impact on the actions of the Trump administration. Twenty-four
hours after the open letter was released, Trump’s Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson
expressed his belief in the importance of America staying at the Paris
Agreement roundtable so as to “understand its impacts on the American people and
American competitiveness” (Tollefson 2017). A week later, the EPA freeze was lifted, with
the Trump administration stating that “as of now, nothing has been delayed. Nothing has
been cut. There was simply a pause and everything’s up and running” (King 2017).
On February 17, 2017, Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma Attorney General and selfdescribed
“leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda”, was confirmed as the new
EPA Administrator. Following this, on March 16, President Trump released a budget
proposal that went uncontested by the new administrator. The budget proposed a $2.6
billion (31 percent) cut to the EPA’s budget, as well as a workforce reduction of 3,200
people that would begin in October 2017. Particularly momentous cuts suggested a $129
million reduction of the EPA’s enforcement budget, a $73 million reduction in chemical
safety and renewable energy research, a $66 million reduction in climate protection
funding, as well as the complete removal of funding for lake restoration, diesel emissions
reduction, and 60 other programs (Korte 2017).
The magnitude of the suggested reductions will have a direct impact on the ability of the
US to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement that it is still held accountable to during
the four years of the withdrawal process. Research conducted by the EPA helps to
determine national areas of environmental interest and create realistic goals for progress.
33