History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection

An equity and environmental justice assessment of anti-science actions during the Trump administration

In the United States, science shapes federal health and safety protections, but political officials can and do politicize federal science and science-based safeguards. Many presidential administrations have politicized science, but under the administration of President Trump, these attacks on science-such as buried research, censored scientists, halted data collection-increased in number to unprecedented levels. Underserved communities bore the brunt of the harms. Such attacks disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous, low-income communities, and communities of color, all of whom have long been burdened by pollution exposure and other stressors. We analyze the effects on underserved communities of the Trump administration's anti-science environmental and public health policy actions and offer policy recommendations for current and future administrations. Our goal is to strengthen scientific integrity, prioritize health disparity research, and meaningfully engage affected communities in federal rulemaking.

Partisan Control of U.S. State Governments: Politics as a Social Determinant of Infant Health

INTRODUCTION

State policies and programs affect population health; yet, little is known about the connections between health and the political institutions and actors that prescribe and execute those policies and programs.

METHODS

The 2-way fixed-effects regression models were fitted to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 1969-2014, to estimate logged infant mortality rate differentials between Republican- and non-Republican‒controlled state legislatures. These data were used in 2020 to hypothesize that net of trend, fluctuations in infant mortality rates-overall and by race-correlate with the party that controls state legislatures (the Lower House, the Upper House, and Congress).

RESULTS

Findings show that state infant and postneonatal mortality rates are substantively higher under Republican-controlled state legislatures than under non-Republican‒controlled ones. The effect size is larger for postneonatal than for neonatal mortality. Findings suggest that effects may be greater for Black than for White infants, although the race-specific results are estimated imprecisely. The governor's party shows no substantive impacts on infant mortality rates net of party control of the Lower House.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the proposition that the social determinants of health are constructed, at least in part, by the power vested in governments.

The EPA's Commitment to Children's Environmental Health: History and Current Challenges

Children's environmental health (CEH) has a 25-year history at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), during which the agency has advanced CEH through research, policy, and programs that address children's special vulnerability to environmental harm. However, the Trump administration took many actions that weakened efforts to improve CEH. The actions included downgrading or ignoring CEH concerns in decision-making, defunding research, sidelining the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and rescinding regulations that were written in part to protect children. To improve CEH, federal environmental statutes should be reviewed to ensure they are sufficiently protective. The administrator should ensure the EPA's children's health agenda encompasses the most important current challenges and that there is accountability for improvement. Guidance documents should be reviewed and updated to be protective of CEH and the federal lead strategy refocused on primary prevention. The Office of Children's Health Protection's historically low funding and staffing should be remedied. Finally, the EPA should update CEH data systems, reinvigorate the role of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and restore funding for CEH research that is aligned with environmental justice and regulatory decision-making needs. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):124-134. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306537).

COVID-19 and Health Disparities: Structural Evil Unmasked

Background:

Incidence and mortality from COVID-19 are starkly elevated in poor, minority and marginalized communities. These differences reflect longstanding disparities in income, housing, air quality, preexisting health status, legal protections, and access to health care. The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have made these ancient disparities plainly visible.

Methodology:

As scholars in Catholic research universities committed to advancing both scientific knowledge and social justice, we examined these disparities through the lenses of both epidemiology and ethics.

Findings:

We see these widening disparities as not only as threats to human health, societal stability, and planetary health, but also as moral wrongs - outward manifestations of unrecognized privilege and greed. They are the concrete consequences of policies that promote structural violence and institutionalize racism.

Recommendations:

We encourage governments to take the following three scientific and ethical justified actions to reduce disparities, prevent future pandemics, and advance the common good: (1) Invest in public health systems; (2) Reduce economic inequities by making health care affordable to all; providing education, including early education, to all children; strengthening environmental and occupational safeguards; and creating more just tax structures; and (3) Preserve our Common Home, the small blue planet on which we all live.

Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump's EPA

While critics cast the Trump administration as anti-science, requiring in response vigorous defense of science, analysis of the Trump EPA reveals instead a strategy to develop deregulatory science. In its first 3 years, the Trump EPA introduced and started to implement a variety of new frameworks to remake scientific risk analysis, changing how it assesses exposures, hazards and costs of chemical harms. The article focuses on EPA frameworks associated with the Clean Air Act, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule and Toxic Substances Control Act. The new approaches compel the agency to ignore many pathways of exposure and pivotal studies of hazards, include dose-response models that treat pollution as healthful and change how costs and benefits are calculated. Yet it justifies these frameworks in terms of evidence-based decision-making, transparency and the separation of science from politics. According to its political appointees, the Trump EPA stands for scientific integrity, because it is promulgating evidence-based approaches in risk analysis that show regulation to be neither necessary nor appropriate. This is not just rhetoric but represents an effort to engage science to delegitimize environmental regulation. There is continuity between the Trump EPA and past efforts to use science to justify regulatory rollbacks: defending science by demarcating it from non-science is just as much a strategy for deregulation as it is for regulation. A key lesson is that contesting deregulation by declaring it anti-science reflects an impasse, as deregulatory approaches then also seek to take the mantle of science. The alternative to engaging in debate over demarcation is to make explicit the values and interests shaping practices of regulatory science.

Environment and political economics: Left-wing liberalism or conservative leftism - Which is better for eco-efficiency? Evidence from Poland

The American literature on political ecology suggests that there is a significant link between the rule of a given political party (Republicans or Democrats) on both national and local level and the environmental policy pursued. When the latter party is in power, environmental budget is larger and local governments are more likely to adopt environmentally sustainable policies. However, the political context of European countries is usually much more complex, as there exist different hybrids of economic views and core social values which so far have gathered a little attention with regard to its impact on eco-efficiency. There is a need to analyse which types of political beliefs are correlated with higher level of environmental performance. Hence, the main goal of this paper is to estimate the impact of long-term political preferences on the eco-efficiency levels of Polish country districts. Eco-efficiency was calculated as a ratio of economic development and environmental pressure in four dimensions: soil pollution, water pollution, air pollution, and bio-uniformity. Double bootstrapped truncated regression was used to capture the effects of the political views proxied by electoral decisions and individual willingness to adopt agri-environmental schemes. The analysis was complemented with spatial autoregressive modelling. The most important finding was that local authorities from large parties are more eco-efficient than local committees. Simultaneously, left-wing (but market liberal) views were correlated with higher eco-efficiency levels in relation to other political options. Higher share of councillors with university degrees and subsidies under common agricultural policy were further positive determinants of eco-efficiency.

Public perceptions of federal science advisory boards depend on their composition

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice to inform agency decision-making. Recent regulations have decreased the representation of academic scientists on the EPA SAB and increased the representation of industry scientists. In an experiment, we asked how the US public views the goals and legitimacy of the board as a function of its composition. Respondents perceived SABs with a majority of industry scientists to be more likely to promote business interests than SABs with a majority of academic scientists. Liberals were less likely than conservatives to perceive industry-majority SABs as promoting human health and the environment, and making unbiased and evidence-based decisions. Our findings underscore the potential for politicization of scientific advice to the government.

The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture

We explore and contextualize changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the first 6 months of the Trump administration, arguing that its pro-business direction is enabling a form of regulatory capture. We draw on news articles, public documents, and a rapid response, multisited interview study of current and retired EPA employees to (1) document changes associated with the new administration, (2) contextualize and compare the current pro-business makeover with previous ones, and (3) publicly convey findings in a timely manner. The lengthy, combined experience of interviewees with previous Republican and Democratic administrations made them valuable analysts for assessing recent shifts at the Scott Pruitt-led EPA and the extent to which these shifts steer the EPA away from its stated mission to "protect human and environmental health." Considering the extent of its pro-business leanings in the absence of mitigating power from the legislative branch, we conclude that its regulatory capture has become likely-more so than at similar moments in the agency's 47-year history. The public and environmental health consequences of regulatory capture of the EPA will probably be severe and far-reaching.

The politics hypothesis and racial disparities in infants' health in the United States

We propose the politics hypothesis-i.e., the hypothesis that political forces comprise either a powerful predecessor of the social determinants of health or are essential social determinants of health themselves. We examine the hypothesis that political actors like presidents, their ideology, and institutions like the political parties they represent shape overall and race-specific health outcomes. Using census and Vital Statistics data among many other sources, we apply both theory- and data-driven statistical methods to assess the role of the president's party and the president's political ideology as predictors of overall and race-specific infant mortality in the United States, 1965-2010. We find that, net of trend, Republican presidencies and socially-conservative ideology of U.S. presidents are strongly associated with slower declines of infant mortality rates, overall and for white and black infants, compared to Democratic and socially-liberal presidents in the U.S. Approximately half (46%) of the white-black infant mortality gap, about 20,000 additional infant deaths, and most if not all the infant mortality rate gap between the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, can be attributed to the 28 years of Republican administrations during the study period. These findings are consistent with the politicization of public health and the conceptualization of politics as a powerful predecessor, in the causal chain, of the social determinants of health. Understanding the political ideological and institutional contexts in which health policies and healthcare and welfare programs are implemented, as well as how governments construct culture and social psychology, provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding and improving population patterns of disease, mortality, and entrenched racial disparities in health in the U.S.

DATA RESISTANCE: A SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONAL AUTOETHNOGRAPHY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE

The dismantlement of evidence-based environmental governance by the Trump Administration requires new forms of activism that uphold science and environmental regulatory agencies while critiquing the politics of knowledge production. The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) emerged after the November 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, becoming an organization of over 175 volunteer researchers, technologists, archivists, and activists innovating more just forms of government accountability and environmental regulation. Our successes include: 1) leading a public movement to archive vulnerable federal data evidencing climate change and environmental injustice; 2) conducting multi-sited interviews of current and former federal agency personnel regarding the transition into the Trump administration; 3) tracking changes to federal websites. In this article, we conduct a "social movement organizational autoethnography" on the field of movements intersecting within EDGI and on our theory, tactics, and practices. We offer ideas for expanding and iterating on methods of public, collaborative scholarship and advocacy.