Senators questioned Administrator Lee Zeldin about an agency reorganization that would shift the Office of Research and Development’s scientists into program offices and that has led to concern about the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.

Senator Chris Van Hollen and others described the offices as important to science-based policy and community protections. Senator Van Hollen said ORD “plays an essential role in advancing science based policy and protecting communities, from toxic exposures, including carcinogens, PFAS, lead and air pollutants.” He asked whether the decision was based on performance or an external directive.

Administrator Zeldin said the reorganization is his decision and that the agency has not announced a reduction in force related to ORD. He described creating an “office of applied science and environmental solutions,” adding scientists to the Office of Chemicals, and increasing PFAS research within the Office of Water. “We're creating a new office of applied science and environmental solutions. That's why we're adding scientists to the office of chemicals,” he said.

Why it matters: Senators warned that moving scientists out of ORD or substantially reducing ORD staff could undermine perceived independence and the objectivity of research that informs regulations, monitoring and enforcement.

Several senators requested clarity about the criteria used for reorganization and whether ORD scientists who apply for other positions would be able to continue independent research. Zeldin said career staff provided feedback used to design the reorganization and that many ORD scientists are applying for positions across program offices.

On the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, senators said at least one community air monitoring grant in Delaware was terminated and requested that Zeldin review canceled grants affecting localized monitoring efforts. Zeldin offered to meet individually with senators to review canceled grants and said he would “go through each grant” to identify issues and help determine what funds could still be executed during the fiscal year.

Committee members asked for transparency on whether any layoffs would occur, how independence of scientific research would be protected after reorganization, and specific follow-up on grants tied to community monitoring.