At a time when the Trump administration is under intense scrutiny for dismissing warnings by the scientific community, the EPA has moved to fast-track a long-standing effort to limit the amount of scientific and health research that is used in shaping environmental policy. InsideClimate News wrote that the agency’s so-called “secret science” rule, which was first floated by scandal-ridden former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, would “restrict the agency's use of studies that rely on confidential human health data, including some of the seminal studies linking air pollution to premature death,” explaining, “If the Trump administration succeeds in pushing the regulation through and barring the EPA from using those two studies, it will make it more difficult for the agency to show that the benefits of air pollution regulations outweigh the costs.”

This is a move that the fossil fuel industry has long championed, but perhaps the most egregious part of the Trump administration ramming this proposal through is that the public comment period was originally open until April 17. One Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) director said, “Bringing this extensive proposal forward during the COVID-19 pandemic is reckless and would divert critical public health expertise from the singular mission of protecting the public and controlling the pandemic.” Jared Blumenfeld, California’s Secretary of the Environment stated, "A comment period that short would be inadequate for such a complex and consequential rule even in ordinary circumstances and is especially so in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic.”

After statements like these, the EPA extended the deadline until May 18 -- which is still far too early than what many state attorney generals were asking for.

In addition to InsideClimate News, climate reporters at E&E News, The Hill, Bloomberg Environment, and Science Mag have also covered this proposal. The Boston Globe editorial board lambasted the proposal and mentioned that Harvard University’s groundbreaking “Six Cities” study from 1993, which discussed the dangers of air pollution on public health, would surely be under attack by the “secret science” rule. The board concluded that the new rule is “a bad idea, because it would force the EPA to base decisions not on the best science but on other priorities.” However, despite the long-term implications of this act and its clear relationship to the Trump administration’s failed response to the coronavirus, there was not a single mention of this action on any broadcast or cable TV news show going back to March 1, just prior to when the EPA made a new update to its proposal.