Not symbolic vandalism. Real, deliberate damage to one of our most trusted public institutions.

Under Burgum’s leadership, the National Park Service is being dismantled piece by piece—through political interference, workforce depletion, corruption, and the systematic erasure of American history.

Some of this damage is happening in plain sight. Much of it is not.

Distorting and Politicizing American History

One of the most visible acts of vandalism we have seen in recent months is the deliberate erasing of our nation’s history in advance of the 250th anniversary celebration. A slavery exhibit was removed from Independence National Historical Park. References to Japanese American internment and conflicts with Native Americans have been stripped from sites like Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Climate change interpretation has been removed from Acadia National Park and Fort Sumter. Even the language used to describe LGBTQ+ history at Stonewall National Monument has been altered.

These are not isolated edits. They are part of a broader effort to distort and politicize the American story. In doing so, Burgum is violating the National Park Service’s core mission: to preserve and interpret the full breadth of our history—not just the comfortable parts, but the difficult and defining ones as well.

And let’s be clear, erasing history doesn’t make it disappear. It only makes it easier to repeat. And it harkens back to very dark times in human history.

But what’s visible is only a fraction of the vandalism.

Traumatizing Staff

Behind the scenes, the Park Service is being hollowed out. Since early 2025, nearly a quarter of its workforce has been pushed out, while its budget has been slashed.

The consequences are already being felt.

Staffing shortages and funding cuts have pushed parks to the brink. Reports from last summer showed dozens of sites struggling to remain open and safe while still being required to maintain full public access—even as staffing levels collapsed. The result is predictable: overworked employees, diminished visitor services, and growing safety risks.

Now, even more layoffs are being threatened.

In short, the National Park Service is being forced to do more with less—and visitors are paying the price.

The scope of this vandalism extends even further.

Creating Intentional Chaos

Burgum also instituted a disastrous reorganization within the Department of the Interior, consolidating thousands of employees from Interior agencies into the Office of the Secretary, with no clear management structure and no lines of authority.

In building this bureaucratic empire, Secretary Burgum is further impoverishing the very agencies responsible for carrying out Interior’s mission.

What is Burgum’s ultimate goal with the National Park Service?

Last year, Burgum floated a plan to shutter hundreds of park sites nationwide. Though Congress has not advanced the proposal, the intent was unmistakable: to fundamentally reshape, if not dismantle, the National Park System as we know it.

It’s All About the Money

Burgum views public lands, including our national parks, as an asset to extract money from, not places to protect for the American people.

He has denounced steps taken during the Biden administration to conserve federal lands and waters and withdraw them from economic activity to protect ecosystems and nearby communities. “Was that a theft of trillions of dollars from you, your kids, your grandkids and every American?” Burgum asked. And if all of that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that Burgum has allowed our nation’s 250 birthday celebration to become awash in naked corruption. The Department of the Interior has reportedly diverted $100 million in taxpayer funds—without congressional approval—from a nonpartisan public entity intended to pay for the celebration to a private organization controlled by Trump loyalists called Freedom 250.

This new entity operates without transparency, without public accountability, and without meaningful oversight. It seems to exist to promote a white Christian nationalist view of the United States, to further Trump’s authoritarian push, and as a grift for Trump loyalists who can pay for access to the President through Freedom 250 events.

Taken together, these actions paint a clear picture. This is not mismanagement. It is a deliberate campaign to weaken, reshape, and ultimately dismantle one of the most trusted institutions in American life.

It is vandalism—in real time—of America’s national parks.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | The Intentional Vandalization of America’s National Parks appeared first on PEER.org.

On their day off, SJ and a group of friends unfurled a transgender pride flag on El Capitan for less than three hours before voluntarily taking it down. For decades, climbers at Yosemite have displayed banners and messages there — political and non-political alike. Until SJ, no one had ever been disciplined for doing so.

SJ was fired anyway.

The National Park Service escalated further by opening a criminal investigation — an unprecedented response to peaceful expression on public lands. This week, SJ filed a federal lawsuit seeking reinstatement and damages, arguing they were targeted for expressing a disfavored viewpoint in violation of their First Amendment rights. SJ also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stop the significant and ongoing harm resulting from the illegal firing and criminal investigation.

This isn’t really about a flag.

It’s about whether public employees are still allowed to speak as private citizens — and what it means for environmental protection, public lands, and public health when government workers are punished for speaking honestly.

This Isn’t an Isolated Case

At PEER, we don’t see SJ’s experience as a one-off.

The Trump administration is engaging in an unprecedented campaign to narrow federal workers’ free speech rights and aggressively target employees perceived as disloyal. Across agencies, employees are being disciplined not for misconduct, but for speech that challenges political leadership.

For example, we represent EPA employees who were fired after publicly signing a June 30, 2025 open letter to Administrator Lee Zeldin and members of Congress. The letter protested the politicization of science at the agency and warned that EPA’s actions under this administration were endangering public health and the environment.

We also represent Carolyn McConnell, an attorney at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who was threatened with criminal prosecution for co-authoring an op-ed supporting national park staffing on her own time. Her advocacy had nothing to do with her official duties — yet she was warned that continuing to speak publicly could cost her job. If the NLRB’s interpretation of the law is allowed to stand, it will give an authoritarian regime a tool to stifle all federal workers.

Different agencies. Different circumstances. Same outcome: employees disciplined for speech leadership didn’t like.

Over time, that pattern doesn’t just punish individuals — it reshapes institutions.

The message is clear: speak out, and you risk your career.

That doesn’t just hurt individuals. It changes how agencies operate.

When scientists, rangers, inspectors, and analysts learn that raising concerns brings retaliation, information stops moving upward. Problems stay buried. Decisions get made without scrutiny. Corruption grows. The public loses one of its most important lines of defense.

Why This Matters for the Environment and Public Health

Federal employees are often the first to see when environmental protections are weakened, when science is sidelined, or when political pressure overrides professional judgment.

Park rangers protect fragile ecosystems and cultural resources. Scientists track toxic exposures and climate impacts. Career staff enforce laws that keep pollution out of our air and water.

These aren’t political actors. They’re public servants doing their jobs.

When they’re intimidated into silence, environmental harm doesn’t magically disappear — it just becomes more difficult to detect and harder to stop.

SJ’s case makes that painfully obvious. Yosemite isn’t just a national park; it represents generations of conservation work. If a ranger-biologist can be fired and criminally investigated for peaceful expression on their own time, every federal employee is paying attention.

They’re being shown that constitutional rights may evaporate the moment they become inconvenient.

Selective Enforcement Is Not Accountability

The administration has pointed to SJ’s probationary status to justify the termination. But probationary status doesn’t erase First Amendment protections. And it doesn’t explain why long-standing practices at Yosemite suddenly became grounds for dismissal — only when a transgender pride flag was involved.

That’s selective enforcement.

And selective enforcement aimed at silencing a particular viewpoint cuts straight against constitutional protections. It also sends a warning to thousands of public employees: even off-duty speech can cost you your livelihood.

Governance by Intimidation Carries Real Consequences

What we’re seeing is a shift toward governance by intimidation.

Employees are being asked to do their jobs in an environment where transparency is shrinking, oversight is politicized, and dissent is treated as disloyalty. That might give leadership short-term control, but it does real damage to institutions that exist to protect public health and natural resources.

At PEER, we hear from government professionals every day who just want to do their jobs with integrity. Many reach out quietly. They’re worried about retaliation. Unsure of their rights. Afraid of what speaking up could mean for their families.

That’s not how government is supposed to work.

Accountability depends on professional independence and the ability to raise concerns without fear.

What Happens Now

SJ’s lawsuit seeks reinstatement, damages, and recognition that public employees don’t surrender their constitutional rights when they enter government service. Carolyn McConnell’s case challenges whether agencies can threaten prosecution simply to silence off-duty advocacy. Together, these cases will help determine whether constitutional protections still apply inside government.

But this goes well beyond any single lawsuit.

If agencies are allowed to punish speech they don’t like — especially when it touches on identity, science, or environmental protection — silence becomes the norm.

And when silence becomes normal, everyone loses.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | When Government Silences Its Own Workers, We All Lose appeared first on PEER.org.

My testimony followed reports that the Department of the Interior (DOI) had transferred at least $100 million in taxpayer funds from the congressionally mandated, non-partisan organization that was supposed to put on America’s birthday to the more partisan entity founded by President Trump.

Before the committee, I raised concerns that DOI and the National Park Foundation are moving taxpayer money off the public books to Freedom 250 with no transparency, no accountability, and no guardrails.

I spoke about PEER’s January letter to DOI Secretary Burgum, which raised concerns about DOI’s compliance with appropriations laws and transparency requirements, and its authority to redirect congressionally authorized funds.

I mentioned our request for information, which DOI has failed to disclose, on the following:

• A full accounting of how taxpayer funds connected to Freedom 250 are being spent
• Disclosure of private fundraising and donor relationships
• Clear explanation of the role DOI agencies and affiliated organizations are playing
• Assurance that public employees are not being directed to support private enterprises

In addition to addressing the concerns in our letter, I also testified about troubling reporting in The New York Times on how the Trump administration is selling access to events around the 250^th anniversary to the highest corporate bidder. I also noted that many of the corporations making donations have substantial financial interest in currying good favor with the Trump Administration.

I also addressed a leaked video from the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in which the head of Freedom 250 was pitching foreign state actors to donate to Freedom 250. I shared that DOI employees were being pressured to include Freedom 250 logos and links in the email signatures of their official email accounts – a possible violation of the Hatch Act and the employee’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech.

Many Democrats used the hearing to call out the administration’s continued efforts to erase history across the National Park System and expressed concerns that Freedom 250 was espousing a white, Christian nationalist view of United States history.

In my testimony, I mentioned that this administration is deliberately erasing our nation’s history in advance of the 250^th anniversary celebration. Recent examples include DOI’s removal of a slavery exhibit at Independence Park in Philadelphia and the removal of references to difficult historical events at National Park Service (NPS) sites, such as the internment of Japanese American people at camps and conflicts with Native Americans at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City.

I was clear that erasing history doesn’t make it go away; it makes it more likely to repeat itself and harkens back to some very dark and dangerous times in world history.

As I said at the end of my testimony, a 250^th anniversary celebration should strengthen trust in our democratic institutions, not erode it. When it comes to Freedom 250, transparency is not a distraction from patriotism; it is one of its most essential expressions. 

What comes next

PEER will keep pushing for transparency, lawful use of taxpayer funds, and protections for DOI and NPS employees who raise concerns about Freedom 250.

America’s 250^th anniversary should strengthen confidence in our institutions, not erode it. It should reflect our full history, not be shaped by a Christian nationalist view of our country. And it should respect the career professionals who protect public lands, not place them in ethically compromised positions.

This isn’t partisan. It’s about preserving the public trust — and making sure our shared resources are treated like they belong to all of us.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | Testimony on Freedom 250 and the Lack of Transparency in America’s Semiquincentennial appeared first on PEER.org.

With impacts to public health, wildlife, and the environment, the results of this failure are evident across the nation: views of protected landscapes and historic sites ruined, wetlands filled, endangered species habitat cleared, sacred sites desecrated, burial mounds and archaeological sites disturbed, and fragile underwater environments degraded. Equally important, the voices of communities and citizens are suppressed and ignored. (Over the years, PEER has challenged the FCC’s weak and non-compliant NEPA rules–unfortunately, with no success.)

Now, using the pretext of a changed legal landscape and in response to industry requests to cut “regulatory red tape,” the FCC is on the verge of promulgating NEPA rules that would further weaken its already skeletal NEPA rules and further exempt itself from NEPA obligations. [2]

The FCC already has one of the least burdensome and least rigorous NEPA procedures of any agency. For example, with no oversight or record, it delegates much of the preliminary environmental review to industry; its NEPA rule is structured with an overly broad categorical exclusion, with the result that few of its authorized activities undergo either industry or agency environmental review, and few environmental effects are considered. Also, its notice and comment procedures are designed to exclude the public; unlike most agencies, it currently has no webpage devoted to NEPA compliance and documents. Unsurprisingly then, FCC has almost never enforced NEPA against industry violators.

Given the FCC’s dismal record on NEPA compliance, NEPA has been neither a burden on industry nor a brake on deployment, despite the claims of the agency and the industry. On the contrary, FCC’s unusual rule structure already excludes most deployments from review, as demonstrated by the deployment of tens of thousands of satellites as well as of 4G, 5G and other infrastructure. Industry, for its part, has prepared very few environmental assessments over the past years, while the FCC has never produced a more exhaustive environmental impact statement.

Alleging that “modernizing “and “streamlining” its NEPA procedures is necessary to facilitate wireless broadband deployment across the country, the FCC now proposes to:

• Redefine which actions trigger NEPA review so that even fewer actions are supposed to be reviewed for potential environmental effects; it proposes to eliminate substantive NEPA review for all deployments built pursuant to geographic licenses, for registered towers, and for any deployments built with FCC funds (the last of which the FCC has, probably illegally, never considered as a NEPA review-triggering action).
• Further eliminate public input and notice. It aims to further reduce transparency and public involvement by making the few environmental documents that will be submitted under this new scheme even less comprehensive in terms of analysis of effects, even less available to the public for review and comment, and even more burdensome on the public to establish at a given site an effect that warrants further consideration. The FCC even goes so far as to propose deleting the one provision in its rules that allows the public to raise an effect not considered or inadequately considered and eliminating the minimal court-ordered environmental notification requirements.
• Exempt space-based operations (satellite launches and licensing) from environmental review, because it alleges that NEPA does not apply or that they have no effects, despite adverse effects of, for example, artificial lighting on migrating birds, pollinating insects, and human enjoyment of night skies.
• Through elimination of review of the majority of deployments, eliminate applicability of rules governing human exposure to radiofrequency emissions.

As wireless technologies proliferate—and presumably soon with even less environmental review—the environmental impacts, already widely recognized, will only multiply. Taken together, these proposals if codified will eviscerate an already streamlined, bare-bones, and weak NEPA process and make the FCC even less transparent and accountable to the public.

To augment this effort, the FCC is also working on another rule—also reflecting the wireless industry wish list—that would preempt state and local siting authority based on a slew of “impediments” such as “unreasonable” fees or processing delays, and aesthetic criteria. With almost 30 bills introduced on accelerating broadband siting this session (see., e.g., HR 2564), Congress too is doing its part to dismantle NEPA and trample on local rights. Any and all of these radical new frameworks will hand industry a carte blanche to deploy infrastructure that runs roughshod over local, state and public interests, as well as the environment.

[1] For background, see Elkind, Peter, “The FCC is Supposed to Protect the Environment. It Doesn’t.” Pro Publica, May 5, 2023, and Rosenberg, Erica, “Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture” Environment, October/December 2022.

[2] See Modernizing the Commissions’ National Environmental Policy Act Rules. 90 Fed Reg 40, 295 (Aug 19, 2025) (NPRM).

Erica Rosenberg is an environmental attorney with Congressional, NGO, academia, and agency experience, she worked in the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for seven years until 2021. For more details, see: Rosenberg, E. (2022) Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.

The post COMMENTARY | Evisceration of the Federal Communications Commission NEPA appeared first on PEER.org.

Originally published in and reprinted with permission of Common Dreams.

As Congress recesses this week without reauthorizing the Affordable Care Act subsidies needed by millions of Americans, it also quietly gave the oil industry a multimillion dollar tax break by allowing the 9 cent-per-barrel oil tax (on domestic and imported oil) into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to expire as well on December 31. The OSLTF, administered by the Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center, is the nation’s central financial instrument for oil spill prevention and response, earning about $500 million per year from the nominal excise oil tax—about 0.1% of annual US oil industry revenue.

In our current political climate prioritizing industry over public interest, many feared that Congress and the Trump administration might simply allow the oil spill tax to expire, as a “Return on Investment” for industry contributions made to their political campaigns. Congress did just that. As they increase costs for millions of Americans, the Republican congress and administration are decreasing costs for some of the richest companies in the world.

For decades, Congress and the administration have remained stubbornly resistant to using the OSLTF to fund necessary oil spill prevention measures across the nation, and as tax revenue and spill damage recoveries continued to be collected, the fund balance has now grown to over $10 billion. Since the fund’s use for a single oil spill is limited to $1.5 billion, we have long proposed that a substantial portion of the remaining balance be used to better prevent oil pollution across the nation. Instead of just leaving all of this money in the bank, it should be put to work, while saving enough (perhaps $5 billion) for conventional oil spill response activities.

A transcendent lesson learned in all major oil spills around the world is that once oil is spilled, there is precious little that can be done to limit environmental damage. Historically, an average of 2-6% of total spill volume is actually recovered in major marine oil spills (Deepwater Horizon was about 4%, Exxon Valdez about 8%). These multibillion dollar spill responses may look good for oil company and government public relations, but they are virtually irrelevant in limiting environmental harm. Prevention is key to environmental protection.

As a fundamental cause of the 1989 Exxon Valdez and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disasters was inadequate government oversight, expanding drilling while cutting oversight is as reckless as it gets.

Spill prevention measures across the nation in need of more funding include enhanced Vessel Traffic Systems, escort-rescue tugs to prevent groundings and collisions of tankers and cargo ships in dangerous passages (e.g. the March 2024 cargo ship Dali collision with the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore Harbor), enhanced inspection of oil and liquefied natural gas tankers, and so on. However, the federal government has resisted using the fund for such preventive measures.

With the OSLTF tax expiration approaching this summer, we proposed that the fund’s 9 cent-per-barrel tax on domestic and imported crude oil (less than 0.2% of today’s crude oil price, or less than one cent-per-gallon of gasoline) be fully reauthorized, and that the fund’s use for many oil spill prevention measures be significantly expanded. Congress and the administration were unresponsive, raising suspicions that they intended to allow the oil tax to expire, which they just did.

One proposed use for the fund is to safely cap and decommission the millions of derelict, abandoned oil and gas wells across the nation, both onshore and offshore. Regarding these orphaned and abandoned oil wells, a 2021 scientific paper found that, of the 4,700,000 historic and active oil and gas wells across the US, only 1 in 3 (1,500,000) are considered safely plugged. Leakage from improperly abandoned oil and gas wells causes groundwater and air pollution, ecological damage, risk of explosions, and damage to human health.

Costs for well decommissioning and abandonment have been estimated to range from $10,000-$50,000 to plug old, shallow wells; $300,000 for newer, deeper wells; and up to $1 million for more complex wells. In a 2015 study, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the cost to securely decommission the thousands of deepwater oil and gas wells in the US Gulf of Mexico (two-thirds of the 5,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico are in deep water) at $38.2 billion. The GAO study reported that, of the $38.2 billion in decommissioning liabilities, $2.3 billion were not covered by existing financial assurances; and of the remaining $35.9 billion in decommissioning liabilities, the federal government held $2.9 billion in bonds and other assurances, while waiving the remaining $33 billion for companies that passed a “financial strength test.” The GAO expressed concern about such extensive waivers of financial assurances, as this exposes the federal government to substantial future costs.

Clearly, abandoned oil and gas wells present enormous oil pollution risk, public safety hazard, and substantial government financial liability that we as a nation have ignored for too long. We have to do better, and using the OSLTF for this purpose would clearly be in the national interest.

Further, while the Trump administration recently proposed opening virtually the entire US Outer Continental Shelf (more than 1 billion acres of the nation’s offshore waters) to oil and gas drilling, it slashed the budget for the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) by roughly 35%, from $220 million to just $143 million. As a fundamental cause of the 1989 Exxon Valdez and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disasters was inadequate government oversight, expanding drilling while cutting oversight is as reckless as it gets. Thus, an important use for the federal oil spill fund should be to expand BSEE’s budget, as it is largely focused on preventing catastrophic oil spills from the nation’s several thousand offshore oil rigs. There are countless other cost-effective pollution prevention measures as well that need OSLTF funding.

But with Congress and the Trump administration ignoring these real funding needs, and allowing the oil tax to expire (as a gift to their oil industry contributors), the nation remains exposed to unnecessary risk of continued oil pollution, including small chronic releases, as well as major disasters like the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. So much for “government efficiency.” Hopefully Congress will come to its senses in 2026, and fix what it just broke.

Rick Steiner is a marine conservation biologist in Anchorage, AK and PEER’s Board Chair.

The post COMMENTARY | Trump and Congress Just Gifted Big Oil a Multimillion Dollar Stocking Stuffer appeared first on PEER.org.

That premise is now being tested in ways we have not seen in decades. This will have serious consequences for our environment and public health. 

Accountability Is Being Dismantled

Over the past several years, a series of Supreme Court decisions and executive actions — spanning more than one administration — have steadily weakened the legal and institutional guardrails that once constrained abuses of power. Long-standing doctrines that reinforced accountability are being narrowed or abandoned, making misconduct harder to investigate and easier to excuse.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision expanding presidential immunity is a clear example. PEER has warned that this ruling carries serious consequences for whistleblowers and the career public servants charged with exposing wrongdoing. As we explained in our analysis, the decision risks creating a system in which unlawful conduct is insulated from scrutiny based on who commits it, rather than what was done.

That is a dangerous precedent. And it should alarm anyone who expects the law to apply evenly.

Legal scholars have sounded similar warnings. New York Times columnist David French has described the Court as increasingly failing at its most basic responsibility: enforcing limits on power. Whether one agrees with his framing or not, the practical effect is clear. When accountability weakens at the top, it cascades downward — fast. 

The Civil Service Is Being Transformed

When accountability fails, we all pay the price.

Federal scientists, engineers, inspectors, and analysts are often the first — and sometimes the only — people positioned to detect corruption, regulatory capture, or abuse of authority. They depend on clear rules, independent oversight, and credible whistleblower protections to do their jobs honestly.

When those protections erode, a familiar pattern takes hold. Influence shifts toward those with money, access, and political leverage. Scientific and technical expertise inside agencies is sidelined. Industries that prefer fewer questions and weaker enforcement — oil, gas, and chemicals among them — gain ground.

PEER has documented this dynamic for decades. The result is not simply inefficient government. It is a civil service that is increasingly pressured to serve private interests rather than the public. The Trump administration is taking this a step further and pushing to replace professionals in government with loyalists who will serve the president, not the law.

Rebuilding trust requires confronting corruption and patronage directly — not normalizing it or stripping away the tools designed to prevent it.

These Attacks Will Leave Us All Sicker

This erosion is not theoretical. Its consequences are measurable and immediate.

When oversight weakens:

• Climate pollution increases.
• Wildlife and ecosystems lose protection.
• Toxic chemicals move more freely into air, water, and soil.

Environmental and public-health safeguards rely on independent science, transparent data, and enforcement insulated from political or financial pressure. Remove accountability, and those safeguards become negotiable. In many cases, they disappear altogether.

We have seen this cycle repeat often enough to recognize it for what it is. 

Rebuilding Accountability Is Necessary

This moment also presents a choice.

Rebuilding accountability does not mean recreating old systems unchanged. It means modernizing oversight to match the scale and complexity of today’s challenges.

A government worthy of public trust should include:

• Inspectors General who are independent, protected, and adequately resourced;
• Data and science that are accessible to the public and used in decision-making;
• Whistleblower and scientific integrity protections that work in practice, not just on paper; and
• Transparency tools that make government actions understandable to the public.

In short, sunlight and accountability are infrastructure. Just as physical infrastructure enables commerce, oversight and transparency enable democracy, public health, and environmental protection.

Accountability Enables Effective Government

Accountability does not weaken the government. It makes the government function.

A system in which oversight is strong, science is respected, and public servants are empowered to act with integrity is not a partisan vision. It is a prerequisite for protecting the environment, safeguarding public health, and ensuring the government serves the public — not the powerful.

At PEER, we believe restoring accountability is among the most urgent environmental and public health challenges of our time. It is also a challenge we know how to meet — if we choose to strengthen, rather than silence, the institutions designed to keep the government honest.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | Building Accountability Back Into Government: Why It’s Essential for the Environment and Public Health appeared first on PEER.org.

Several major rollbacks have come almost back-to-back. None of them should be viewed in isolation. Together, they show a government being redirected to serve a narrow set of industries at the expense of the public.

And much of it is happening under the radar.

A Costly Fuel-Economy Rollback Helps Polluters

Earlier this month, the administration proposed slashing federal fuel-efficiency standards, dropping requirements to 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031. This tosses out rules that would have pushed automakers toward cleaner, more efficient vehicles.

The consequences are straightforward: More gasoline burned. More climate pollution. Higher costs for families.

And NRDC’s analysis shows those costs will reach into the billions over the next decade. Oil companies and automakers have been pushing for this rollback for years, and they’re getting exactly what they asked for. Just as Trump promised Big Oil executives at Mar a Lago last year they would if they donated and supported his campaign.

It is pay-to-play corruption at its worst.

EPA Moves to Scrap a Life-Saving Air Pollution Standard

Almost simultaneously, EPA began trying to undo a strengthened national standard for fine particulate matter — “soot” — that scientists widely agree would prevent thousands of premature deaths each year.

According to AP News, EPA lawyers are asking a federal court to vacate the rule entirely. This standard wasn’t abstract. It was designed to reduce pollution that triggers asthma attacks, worsens heart disease, and cuts short thousands of lives every year — especially in communities already overburdened by industrial operations or major highways.

Undoing it is reckless. And the people who will feel the consequences first are those with the least political power to stop it.

These Are Not Isolated Actions — They Reflect a Bigger Strategy

None of these moves should come as a surprise to anyone watching closely. They are part of a coordinated, government-wide effort to weaken environmental oversight and sideline scientific expertise.

Multiple agencies are racing to roll back protections across the board — clean air requirements, land conservation measures, wetlands protections, scientific integrity rules, and more. In many cases, policies that took years of research and public engagement to craft are being unwound in a matter of weeks.

A clear example came last month, when the administration expanded offshore oil and gas leasing in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. The New York Times notes that millions of acres of federal waters are now newly open to drilling, even as scientists warn that warming oceans and extreme storms are accelerating. This locks in decades of additional carbon pollution at the worst possible time.

This isn’t deregulation for the sake of efficiency. This is policymaking designed to serve a very specific set of interests and to allow for self-dealing and corruption within the government.

A Government Redirected Toward the Powerful Few

The throughline in all these actions is hard to miss; federal decision-making is being reshaped to benefit wealthy industries and political allies while the public is left to bear the costs.

We will soon see the fallout from these decisions:

• Dirtier air and more asthma attacks
• Higher fuel costs for drivers
• Rising greenhouse gas emissions
• More drilling and extraction on fragile lands and waters
• Communities stripped of long-standing protections

People will feel these changes long after the news cycle moves on.

 The Corruption of the Civil Service is Making Things Worse

Inside government, federal workers describe programs being weakened or destroyed with little explanation, decisions being made without career staff at the table, and scientific findings being sidelined because they conflict with predetermined political outcomes.

This dismantling of environmental programs goes hand-in-hand with the administration’s efforts to wreck our non-partisan civil service and gain the power to hire and fire employees at will — based on their loyalty to the leader, not their competence or loyalty to the constitution.

This erosion of science and public accountability is happening fast, and it affects everything from pollution enforcement to climate research.

What Comes Next

Many people ask me how PEER is working to “meet the moment”- we are doing this by doing what we do best, monitoring changes inside federal agencies, supporting public servants trying to uphold environmental and public health protections, defending employees who have been illegally terminated, and using public opinion to effectuate change.

If you missed these latest environmental developments amid the shutdown or the holidays, that was the intent. But now is the time to pay attention. A government’s priorities become clear not by what it says but by what it protects. And right now, the public interest is losing ground.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | Environmental Attacks Continue at Full Speed; Much of it Under the Radar appeared first on PEER.org.

After ten months of the Trump administration, it is important to recognize that the fate of our work protecting public employees and the environment is dependent on our ability to combat the rise in authoritarianism and promote democratic values in our country.

That raises an important issue: how can we be more effective in our work as the political and legal world changes so rapidly around us? While it is very difficult to predict the future, it is clear we are entering a new era where we must all rapidly adapt to the changes around us and prepare for a long fight for what we believe in.

The Rise of Authoritarianism

Since President Trump took office, the administration has embarked on vindictive campaigns to control the press, punish political opponents, and consolidate power in the hands of the President in ways we have never seen in this country. The administration’s authoritarian tactics are apparent to anyone who follows the news.

Some of those tactics we have been fighting against include:

• Conducting mass purges of public employees.
• Installing loyalty oaths for new hires.
• Increasing surveillance of federal employees to gauge their political leanings.
• Firing public employees for carrying out laws enacted by Congress.
• Cracking down on the free speech rights and rights of association of federal employees.
• Destroying independent government science and attacking scientists.
• Ignoring Congressional appropriations.

Those of us who care about democracy, the environment, and the humane treatment of government workers know the coming months will pose difficult challenges as the administration ramps up its efforts to consolidate power before next year’s elections.

We also know that in the coming months, the work of non-government organizations will become more important as our cases work their way through the courts and administrative bodies. These cases take on added urgency as President Trump recently issued a memorandum authorizing government-wide investigations into non-profits, activists, and their funders, using labels of “terrorism” and “conspiracy against rights.”

There are Signs of Hope

Although our political system is clearly broken, there are signs of hope.

First, most of the legal issues that underpin our lawsuits have not been fully settled. It is important to continue to fight these cases for as many years as necessary – giving up would be exactly what the administration wants.

Second, we are beginning to see pushback in Congress across the political spectrum against some of the more extreme actions of the President. We will do our part to make sure our elected leaders in Congress hear and understand the important work of our federal agencies.

Throughout the country, we are also seeing a growing resentment to the way this administration is treating their fellow human beings, including federal workers.

Finally, we also know that people across the ideological spectrum are coming together to fight to protect the civil service and strengthen environmental protections, whether it is to minimize chemicals in our food, protect public lands and wildlife, or come up with solutions to minimize greenhouse gas pollutants and address climate change.

Old and New Tactics Needed

PEER’s unique blend of protecting public employees and fighting to advance environmental protections is made for this moment.

But we also know we need to adopt new strategies and tactics in the coming months and years if we are to succeed in our work. One such strategy is to make sure we fight harder to expose and fight the corruption that has led to the gutting of the civil service and open war on science and the environment.

Another strategy is to continue to build bridges across all ideological spectrums by listening to others, and learning from and working with them.

To learn more about our response to the rise in authoritarianism and how it affects our work, please visit our recent webinar, Environmental Protection, Public Employees and the Rise of Authoritarianism.

Tim Whitehouse is the Executive Director at PEER.

The post COMMENTARY | Confronting the Rise of Authoritarianism appeared first on PEER.org.

The White House is owned by the American people and managed by the National Park Service. Past presidents have respected this distinction and have recognized that changes to the White House should follow processes designed to preserve the historical integrity and symbolism of the People’s House.

In an October 21st letter, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust), which is chartered by Congress to further historic preservation, wrote the White House urging it “to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes, including consultation and review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, and to invite comment from the public.”

The National Trust noted that the federally recognized Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation offers guidance for construction projects affecting historic properties, including that “new additions should not destroy the historic fabric of the property and that the new work should be compatible with existing massing, size, scale, and architectural features.”

One major concern is that the ballroom will be an outsized eyesore. At 90,000 square feet, it would be nearly double the size of the White House residence. In the measured words of the National Trust, the project will “permanently disrupt the carefully balanced classical design of the White House with its two smaller, and lower, East and West Wings.”

While the White House enjoys an exemption to the National Historic Preservation Act, a law that establishes a program for the preservation of historic properties, every administration since President Johnson signed the Act into law has followed its review process.

When many of these protocols were drafted, no one contemplated they would be overridden by a rogue president ready to roll out demolition crews on a whim. That is because past presidents have recognized that they live in the People’s House and that care must be taken to honor the building’s historical significance.

When Harry Truman had to gut the interior of the White House in 1950, he had the good sense to personally see to it that every bit deemed historic and essential was catalogued, set aside, preserved, and then properly put back in place once the new internal structure, steel I-beams, and replacement flooring of the Executive Mansion were re-installed.

When Jacqueline Kennedy undertook an upgrade of White House furnishings, she consulted with private architects and historic preservation experts to ensure the project was historically faithful to the building and its history.

When Trump announced this plan to build a ballroom in July, he assured that the project would not interfere with the existing White House structure. At the time, he called the White House “one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the world.”

Now, Mr. Trump says the East Wing “was never thought of as being much” and “needed to go.”

This is a president who has paved over the Kennedy Rose Garden and redecorated the Oval Office with “over the top golden opulence.” His garish sense of taste may result in an even bigger ballroom in an ego-fueled effort to make the Palace of Versailles look like a quaint bungalow.

Then, there is the bunker. Under the East Wing is the Presidential Emergency Operations Center which serves as a secure shelter and communications center (and where then-Vice President Dick Cheney was secreted after 9/11). It is also reportedly being demolished to be replaced by a larger, even more secure version. One shudders to contemplate possible future uses of a customized Trump Bunker.

As Hillary Clinton commented, “It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.” Unfortunately, Trump’s treatment of the White House mirrors his treatment of other venerated public institutions, wreaking havoc in seemingly insatiable usurpations of authority. Repairing all this damage will take time.

Jeff Ruch is the former Executive Director and Pacific Director of PEER. He now serves as Senior Counsel.

The post COMMENTARY | East Wing Demolition Metaphor for Trump Governance appeared first on PEER.org.

Concerns about how EPA arrived at its proposed rule were echoed in many of the 380,000 public comments recently submitted to the agency, including PEER’s, and by hundreds of speakers who participated in public hearings on the rule.

Backdoor Convening of Climate Working Group

In March, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright handpicked a group of five scientists to put together a climate study. They all had one thing in common: a history of countering scientific consensus on climate change.

Over the course of a few months, the group secretly authored a report concluding that climate change linked to greenhouse gases is less harmful than previously believed.

The report was cited over 20 times in EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding, despite it being hidden from the public eye and scrutiny up until that point.

A lawsuit filed by environmental groups alleges that this irregular secrecy violated a Federal Advisory Committee act mandating transparency from groups engaged in policymaking. In response, DOE disbanded the group to “invalidate” the lawsuit.

Using a hushed report to justify reversing a finding that will impact the entire globe demonstrates agencies’ abandonment of transparency to quickly advance an agenda. This is further evidenced by EPA suggesting that it might use artificial intelligence to read and respond to public comments, with little explanation on how the technology will be factored into review and decision making.

The People Behind the Controversial Report

Through cherry picking data and misrepresenting studies, the DOE report basically puts Groucho glasses on industry talking points and calls it science. It comes as no surprise, then, that some of the scientists downplaying the effects of greenhouse gas emissions have ties to the industries regulated under the endangerment finding.

Among the group is Steven Koonin, former Chief Scientist at the oil and gas company BP–a company that has been sued for deceiving the public about climate change. It also includes Judith Curry, who publicly acknowledged receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry for consulting services.

It’s also worth noting that the group was carefully chosen by Secretary Wright, a well-known fossil fuel entrepreneur and founder of the multibillion-dollar fracking company Liberty Energy. The report’s blessing on greenhouse gas emissions conveniently coincides with the Trump administration’s active halting of wind and solar energy projects in order to weaken renewable alternatives and bolster the fossil fuel industry.

Undermining Scientific Integrity

The proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is part of a concentrated effort by the Trump administration to abandon science in favor of a political agenda.

While Secretary Wright claims that the DOE report pushes back on the “cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science,” the truth is that it strategically ignores overwhelming scientific consensus. Ironically, his statement comes at a time when agencies are punishing employees for expressing dissent and demanding scientific integrity.

As PEER commented, rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of flawed scientific evidence is antithetical to the reasoned decision-making required by the Administrative Procedures Act. It’s like choosing to cross a bridge after 97% of engineers say it’s structurally unsound just because five engineers say it’s not that bad.

Finalizing the rescindment, as EPA intends to, would harm public health, jeopardize infrastructure and investments, and discredit the missions that our scientific agencies are tasked with carrying out on behalf of the American people.

###

Read more on Trump’s challenge to the endangerment finding

Kaylee Rodriguez is PEER’s litigation assistant. Previously, she served as a legal assistant at the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

The post COMMENTARY | EPA’s Rollback of Endangerment Finding is Cloaked in Secrecy and Science-Denial appeared first on PEER.org.