This new policy is a near carbon-copy of Smith’s Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, and might seem reasonable on its face. (Who doesn’t want more government transparency?) But the policy, which is opposed by most scientists and non-profit scientific societies, will force the EPA to ignore most of the research showing air pollution can cause premature deaths (including a landmark MIT study in 2013 that found air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year). That’s because the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature on effects of fine particulate matter and other pollutants is based on confidential data: human medical records, which are protected by federal law. Though hundreds of scientists have approved these studies through extensive peer review, Pruitt says the results aren’t reliable because some of the information isn’t publicly verifiable.

When Pruitt implements this policy, he’ll be disqualifying “the main body of science that EPA has historically used” to justify limiting air pollutants, said David Baron, the managing attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization. That body of science, for instance, supports the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which restricts the amount of mercury and other heavy metals that coal plants can emit. It also supports the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which control emissions of soot, ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. And the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature regulation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, is backed by science about the health impacts of particulate matter.



The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate all the pollutants these rules cover, but only to the exposure level that scientific literature says is safe for humans. If that literature is effectively erased from the agency because it’s based on confidential data, representatives for polluting industries can more confidently challenge the rules in federal court. But it also gives Pruitt the necessary legal cover to weaken those rules himself, which he has said he intends to do. Though Pruitt’s plan has not yet been implemented, Baron says its eventual impact cannot be overstated. “It’s going to make it extremely difficult for EPA to do its job of protecting people from dangerous air pollutants,” he said.

Pruitt isn’t just trying to disqualify inconvenient scientific literature, but scientists themselves. In October, he banned scientists who have received EPA money from advising him on environmental policy. This is another brainchild of Smith: His Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act is based on the presumption that environmental scientists who have received money from the EPA for research—as many of them have—are biased in favor of regulation. Pruitt agreed. He has also appointed industry representatives and red-state government officials to his Science Advisory Board, even though industry representatives are likely biased against regulation and state governments receive money from the EPA. Many of Pruitt’s new scientific advisers don’t accept climate or air pollution science.

Joe Arvai, a University of Michigan professor who served as an EPA science advisor until his six-year term expired in late September, said this restructuring has already had chilling effects. During his tenure, he said, career EPA employees in the Office of Water and Office of Air would routinely ask the EPA administrator for advice from his Science Advisory Board. “Those career staffers aren’t doing that anymore because they’re fearful for what kind of hatchet job the SAB might do,” he said. Despite his aggressive rollback of regulations, Pruitt doesn’t appear to be asking much of his science advisors, as the SAB hasn’t issued any reports in 2018. There were 10 SAB reports issued 2017, but Arvai said “they’re all just carry-overs” of requests made before Pruitt arrived. Under the Obama administration, the SAB averaged about 11 reports per year.