Trump Officials Pack EPA Chemical Board With 13 Conflicted Nominees as Deregulation Reviews Loom
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jul 13
Trump Officials Pack EPA Chemical Board With 13 Conflicted Nominees as Deregulation Reviews Loom
3 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jul 13
Summary
At least 13 proposed appointees to the EPA’s chemical science advisory committee have likely conflicts tied to chemicals the panel will review, according to comments filed by a coalition of public health groups.
The 20-23 member SACC peer-reviews risk analyses that underpin federal chemical rules, and critics say a board tilted toward industry could supply scientific cover for weakening toxic-substance protections.
Wade Barranco works for Lyondell Chemical, which released nearly 1 million pounds in 2024 of chemicals likely to come before the panel, including benzene, styrene and naphthalene.
Michael Dourson, another nominee, is accused of paid industry work on chemicals expected for review; he previously withdrew from a 2017 Trump EPA nomination after bipartisan conflict-of-interest criticism.
The EPA said prior industry, academic or nonprofit work does not automatically create a legal conflict, but advocates argue the appointments violate rules requiring the committee to be balanced and impartial.
With its main risk program gone, how will the EPA's new committee ensure the safety of everyday chemicals?
When does industry experience become a conflict of interest for scientists advising the government on chemical safety?
Regulatory Capture at the EPA: How Industry Appointments and Deregulatory Policies Threaten U.S. Chemical Safety and Public Health (2024–2026)
Overview
In July 2026, the EPA’s appointments to its Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals and Science Advisory Board quickly drew scrutiny from public health advocates and scientists. Concerns centered on potential conflicts of interest and regulatory capture, especially after industry-linked figures like Robinan Gentry and Tony Cox were chosen for key roles. Critics argued these appointments could undermine the independence and credibility of the EPA’s scientific advisory process, fearing that industry perspectives might influence important decisions. In response, the EPA defended its choices, but the controversy highlighted deep worries about the agency’s ability to provide impartial scientific guidance.