House Science subcommittee presses EPA on OASIS reorganization and fate of ORD

A House Science Committee subcommittee hearing on EPA science and technology spotlighted deep partisan disagreement over the agency's 2025 reorganization that created the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASIS) and dismantled the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

Representative Franklin, the subcommittee chair, opened the hearing titled "Advancing Environmental Protection through Science and Technology" and said the session would examine how OASIS coordinates research across air, water, land and chemical program offices and how the agency will preserve peer review and scientific integrity. He asked whether EPA has the staffing and resources to make the new model work.

Ranking Member David Amo said the reorganization amounted to political interference with EPA science and criticized an internal "interim approval" memo that requires "appropriate political leadership" to support OASIS activities. "It is wholly unacceptable that EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has decided to cower behind you, rather than face the music himself," Amo said, arguing the memo imposes a "tight leash and muzzle on scientists."

Democrats including Representative Zoe Lofgren and others entered news articles and committee correspondence into the record, saying ORD had been effectively shuttered and expressing concern that industry influence and political priorities would shape research agendas that previously were insulated from regulators. Lofgren said the change risks removing the independent research backbone that informed long-term risk assessments.

Full-committee Chairman Michael Babin defended the reorganization as an effort to speed decision-making and reduce duplication, saying the new structure places scientists closer to regulators and program offices.

Dr. Maureen Gwynn, who was introduced by the chair and identified herself as deputy associate administrator for science in OASIS, described OASIS as a coordinating hub responsible for oversight, scientific integrity, data public access and applied research tied to statutory needs. "OASIS not only produces science, but also provides oversight, guidance, and coordination of science activity across the agency," she said.

When pressed about the authorship of the interim approval memo, Dr. Gwynn said, "I wrote this memo after discussions with our senior leadership," and characterized it as an interim tool intended to align research during a transition year with administration priorities. She told lawmakers the memo was modeled on past approaches to research planning and said safeguards exist related to scientific integrity and peer review.

On staffing and capacity, Dr. Gwynn said the agency reassigned about 1,000 former ORD staff across EPA and that the agency is conducting research planning for fiscal year 2026. She clarified later in the hearing that there were "no reductions in force related to the reorganization for the ORD staff," while acknowledging there have been departures and retirements: "There were about 450 to 500 who retired or left the agency," she said. Committee members disputed those figures, with some lawmakers saying the agency had lost hundreds of scientists.

Members pressed Dr. Gwynn about the future of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments and specific products such as a PFNA assessment; she said some IRIS materials already publicly available will remain on the website and that program offices will now perform full risk assessments. She offered to follow up in writing on PFNA and related specifics.

Lawmakers also questioned how OASIS will maintain gold-standard science: Dr. Gwynn said the agency is developing an implementation plan for "gold standard science," will continue existing peer review policies, and will strengthen guidance and quality-assurance practices across the new structure. She pointed to EPA's Data Public Access plan and said OASIS houses cross-agency functions to support transparency.

Other members raised regional and program concerns: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici urged protection for EPA research labs in Oregon and urged continued long-term research on topics like microplastics; Rep. Deborah Ross pressed the witness about the Chapel Hill human research facility and was told that the facility's closure was related to negotiations with the University of North Carolina and not the reorganization. Rep. John Menifee raised environmental justice impacts in Houston and questioned industry influence via Project 2025 and letters from industry groups; Dr. Gwynn said she could not recall specific letters cited by members.

On process and interagency work, Dr. Gwynn described formal memoranda of agreement and partnerships with federal entities such as NOAA and NASA for work like harmful-algal-bloom forecasting and said OASIS will participate in cross-government working groups.

The record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments, and the subcommittee adjourned without a vote. Members on both sides said they expect follow-up questions and written responses on specific assessments, staffing numbers, and the status of previously drafted IRIS products.

The hearing laid out the competing viewpoints: Democrats and some career-science advocates said the reorganization risks political control over research and the loss of independent long-term work, while Republicans and the chair argued the changes increase responsiveness and coordination that can speed regulatory decisions. Dr. Gwynn repeatedly described the reorganization as a transition that will keep peer review, data access and scientific integrity in place while the agency completes its research-planning work.

Next steps: Dr. Gwynn agreed to provide follow-up written responses on the status of specific IRIS assessments and other clarifications the committee requested. The hearing record will remain open for 10 days.