At present the government formulates public health regulations, like those concerning clean air and water, based on scientific studies showing links between pollution and disease. For instance, we have rules surrounding mercury because studies conclusively proved that mercury from power plants negatively affects brain development, and rules concerning lead because of the data showing that lead in paint or dust can lead to behavioral disorders in children. The Trump administration, though, doesn’t like science or regulations, because they‘re impediments to Donald Trump’s industry cronies making as much money as possible, human health be damned. And now, his Environmental Protection Agency has found a nifty way to get rid of both in a move that is uniquely evil, even for this uniquely evil administration.

Per the New York Times, the EPA has drafted a proposal called “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” which sounds well and good, but, of course, does the exact opposite of what the title suggests. According to the proposal, in order for an academic study’s conclusions to be considered, scientists would be required to disclose all of their raw data, including confidential medical records. Naturally, rather than lead to more “transparency,” the requirement would significantly limit medical and scientific research, which is, of course, the point. That would then make it extremely difficult to create new rules because tons of studies demonstrating links between pollution and disease are based on health information obtained under confidentiality agreements. And here’s the kicker: Not only would the proposal affect regulations moving forward, but it could retroactively apply to old ones too:

Public health experts warned that studies that have been used for decades...might be inadmissible when existing regulations come up for renewal. For instance, a groundbreaking 1993 Harvard University project that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths, currently the foundation of the nation’s air-quality laws, could become inadmissible. When gathering data for their research, known as the Six Cities study, scientists signed confidentiality agreements to track the private medical and occupational histories of more than 22,000 people in six cities. They combined that personal data with home air-quality data to study the link between chronic exposure to air pollution and mortality.

“This means the EPA can justify rolling back rules or failing to update rules based on the best information to protect public health and the environment, which means more dirty air and more premature deaths,” Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association, told the Times. Michael Halpern, deputy director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was even more blunt in his assessment: “It was hard to imagine that they could have made this worse, but they did,” he said. “This is a wholesale politicization of the process.” The Medical Library Association and the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries said the proposal “contradicts our core values,” while the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned” that the rule would ultimately result “in weaker environmental and health protections and greater risks to children’s health.” But screw the kids, right? And their meddlesome adult minders too!

Industry groups, who would benefit from fewer pesky studies showing that their products or methods might kill people, are naturally thrilled by the whole thing. “Transparency, reproducibility, and application of current scientific knowledge are paramount to providing the foundation required for sound regulations,” the American Chemistry Council wrote in support of the plan.