For two years before beginning graduate school, I had the great privilege of working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration. I worked out of EPA’s Region 1 office in Boston, implementing climate and air quality programs throughout New England. I joined EPA in Summer 2022, as the agency was coming back to life after the pandemic and the first Trump administration and as part of a wave of new hires to staff programs under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. I am grateful to have worked for EPA during an exciting time for environmental policy in the United States when we had unprecedented resources to channel into fighting climate change and a mandate to prioritize equity and environmental justice. 

As I’ve processed the outcome of our recent election and the whirlwind of policy changes since President Trump’s inauguration, I’ve felt myself thinking back to my time at EPA, reflecting on the climate legacies of the Biden administration, pondering the durability of the progress we’ve achieved, and wondering what is in store for my colleagues back at the Agency. I’ve settled on several sources of hope, envisioning ways that climate action set into motion during the Biden administration can continue to support future decarbonization, even against opposition from the Trump administration. But I am also deeply worried that Trump’s anti-environmental policies and constraint of federal agencies will hinder our capacity to address issues like climate change, with effects that long outlive his administration. This article is an attempt to untangle which legacies of the Biden administration’s climate policy may persist during the Trump era, and ways in which Trump’s actions will affect the EPA moving forward. 

Much of the Biden administration’s climate policy was designed to kickstart and facilitate a transition towards clean energy by delivering common-sense climate solutions that benefit both people and the planet. I am cautiously hopeful that these initiatives set into motion during the Biden administration will propel themselves onward on their merit, fueled by practicality, popularity, and market forces even absent federal funding. 

Take, for example, the Clean School Bus program. Through grants and rebates to school districts and bus service providers, EPA is funding the transition of school bus fleets from diesel to electric. So far, the agency has rolled out awards to fund over 8,500 buses which will serve 1000 school districts across the country. By electrifying school buses, we can both avert carbon emissions and achieve powerful co-benefits by reducing harmful local air pollution. Diesel vehicles spew pollutants such as fine particulate matter, which contributes to health problems including asthma and lung damage. Children, due to their small body size and developing lungs, are acutely vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. School buses are thus particularly valuable to electrify because they expose their young passengers directly to fumes while rolling through local communities and idling near schools. 

“Climate solutions are often portrayed as clashing with the status quo, but many elements of our ongoing energy transition are already blending into the fabric of everyday life.”

Climate solutions are often portrayed as clashing with the status quo, but many elements of our ongoing energy transition are already blending into the fabric of everyday life. If an electric school bus drove by you (which will likely happen soon, if it hasn’t already!), you’d be unlikely to recognize it as a climate solution. Electric school buses look just like conventional school buses, minus the tailpipe, diesel fumes, and loud combustion motor. Like electric school buses, a lot of climate policy is quiet, flying under the radar of public notice. I hope that the rollout of practical climate infrastructure like clean school buses can continue unimpeded because it is a smart policy that achieves public health benefits as well as climate progress. 

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the counterpoint that President Trump has moved already to reverse certain practical and broadly popular elements of a clean energy transition in motion. Trump issued an executive order halting leases for offshore wind development and stalling the permitting process for wind installations while declaring a “national energy emergency.” He has also aimed at federal subsidies for electric vehicles. No matter how popular and economically viable a clean energy transition may be, it is vulnerable to restrictive federal policy. 

Other Biden administration climate projects will visibly transform communities once they are fully built out. The Inflation Reduction Act funded the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program through which EPA recently awarded 4.3 billion dollars to state, local, and tribal governments. (Yes—that’s a billion with a B! This is an unprecedented level of investment for climate solutions). These funds will be used for projects that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as installing vehicle chargers, expanding public transportation, building out renewable energy, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, and supporting climate-smart agriculture practices. These funds have already been awarded to grantees, who are now using them to build out these programs over the next few years. President Trump’s directive freezing federal grant funds has caused widespread confusion that has yet to be completely clarified, despite a court order allowing federal funding to move ahead.

We got a lot done during the Biden administration. But despite my optimism that elements of this work can live on, I am deeply concerned about our ability to meet climate goals and the EPA’s ability to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment under the Trump administration. 

As foreshadowed by Trump’s record and his campaign promises, he has moved swiftly to curtail environmental protection and reverse climate progress. On day one of his presidency, Trump signed an executive order initiating the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He announced intentions to reopen federal public lands and waters for fossil fuel extraction. He has staffed the EPA with lobbyists and representatives from the oil, gas, and chemical industries. We are in a tight race against climate change where urgency counts for everything, and this is no time to turn backward. 

Alarmed though I am by President Trump’s assaults on climate policy, I am equally troubled by his actions to erode the functioning of the federal government and suppress the independence of scientists and technical experts. Trump has issued a hiring freeze for federal government workers, weakened protections for civil service workers, and suspended federal employees whose work relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Though taken under the guise of “government efficiency,” Trump’s efforts to diminish federal agencies’ capacities to do their jobs will disrupt basic services and create lasting harm. 

I am well-versed in the frustrations of working within the bureaucracy. At times, I joked to friends that my job involved protecting human health and the environment, one piece of paperwork at a time. But the truth is that processes matter. It is important to have robust systems, with built-in redundancies and sufficient resources, for awarding and monitoring grants to avoid any misuse of federal funds. It is important to have strong ethical requirements for employees to preclude conflicts of interest and corruption. Despite campaign pledges to “drain the swamp” of corruption, President Trump abruptly fired 17 inspectors general across federal agencies including EPA. Inspectors general are officials who provide independent oversight, conducting audits to ensure that government agencies are carrying out their duties lawfully without waste, fraud, or abuse. There is nothing efficient about eliminating safeguards against corruption. 

I remember, with trepidation, the actions taken during the first Trump administration to censor discussion of climate change by federal agencies. During his first term, Trump suppressed mentions of climate change in federal government websites and publications. Information about climate change is again beginning to disappear from certain government websites, including EPA’s homepage. Government agencies play a critical role in maintaining environmental data and providing reliable information to the public. The scientists and technical experts at EPA cannot do their jobs effectively if they cannot speak freely about the urgency of environmental issues. 

Trump’s aggressive strategy to shrink the workforce across all federal agencies will have long-term consequences. The Trump administration has offered federal employees payouts to resign and warned 1,000 EPA employees that they could be fired at any time. These actions abruptly remove staff expertise without adequate succession planning. Much of EPA’s work depends on institutional memory, supported by dedicated staff who have been with EPA for years or even decades. During my time at EPA, the agency was still rebuilding itself after the departure of over 1,200 scientists and policy experts during the first Trump administration. A workforce reduction at the scale that Trump is pushing for would leave the agency a shell of itself. My EPA colleagues are talented, hardworking, and mission-driven. America needs them at work monitoring our air and water quality, responding to environmental disasters, and addressing climate change.

In the absence of strong federal environmental policy, we will need to look to states and local governments to take leadership on future bold and ambitious policy interventions, as they did during the first Trump administration. This brings me to a final point of hope from our work during the Biden administration. The first stage of the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program provided funding to state, local, and Tribal governments to develop climate action plans. This program required local governments to coordinate across metropolitan areas, building regional collaboration. All grantees were also asked to conduct community outreach to meaningfully engage stakeholders, including low-income and disadvantaged communities, in the development of their plans. While staffing this program, it was rewarding (and now, reassuring) to work with dedicated leaders from state and local agencies who devoted a tremendous amount of energy and care to shaping their climate action plans and building relationships across communities. I am hopeful that this capacity building, facilitated by EPA investment during the Biden administration, will equip state and local governments for enhanced regional collaboration and continued leadership. 

But state and local leadership can’t entirely replace federal institutions. In an address to EPA employees in June 2024, then-Administrator Michael Regan said: 

“America needs a strong EPA. An EPA that can respond to the communities shattered by catastrophic wildfires and hurricanes… An EPA that partners with the advocates who have dedicated their lives to fighting for cleaner air, safer water, and healthier communities… An EPA that empowers the parents who are working tirelessly to protect their children from PFAS and lead exposure… And an EPA that invests in young leaders who are dedicating their lives to protecting our planet.” 

America deserves an EPA that is equipped not only to tackle the climate crisis but to respond to both everyday and unexpected environmental challenges. I can only hope that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency retains the resources and integrity that it needs to carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment during the next four years and beyond.