Compiled by the editorial desk with reference to official statements, public filings and industry data.

The White House has unveiled a 2018 fiscal blueprint that would reduce Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by roughly one-quarter, a move that critics say would cripple the agency's ability to protect public health and enforce environmental laws. The proposal, first reported by The Washington Post, prioritizes military spending and national security while cutting discretionary programs that affect Americans' daily lives.

According to the budget document, the administration aims to "prioritize rebuilding the military and making critical investments in the nation's security," while identifying "savings and efficiencies" to keep the country on a responsible fiscal path. Those savings would come from deep cuts to basic science funding, which would drop by 10.5 percent compared to recent years, as reported by Science. The EPA's Office of Research and Development could lose up to 42 percent of its budget, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The cuts would ripple across the agency. Grants to states for air and water programs could see reductions of 30 percent. The EPA's workforce would shrink from 15,000 to about 12,000 employees, and its annual budget would fall from $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion.

Reaction from Former EPA Leadership

Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA administrator under President Obama, sharply criticized the proposal. "This budget is a fantasy if the administration believes it will preserve EPA's mission to protect public health," she told The Washington Post. "It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law. It ignores the lessons of history that led to EPA's creation 46 years ago. And it ignores the American people calling for its continued support."

Eric Shaeffer, former head of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, echoed those concerns, saying, "Basically, the direction is to reduce enforcement, which is already pretty strained."

The proposal is not entirely unexpected. The administration has signaled a lower priority for environmental protection, and President Trump has previously described climate change as a "Chinese hoax." The scientific community and, more recently, the business sector have emphasized the importance of addressing climate change, but those voices appear to have little influence at the White House.

EPA Chief Expresses Concern

Interestingly, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has sued the agency more than a dozen times, expressed worry about the cuts. "I am concerned about the grants that have been targeted, especially around water infrastructure, and those very important state revolving funds," Pruitt told E&E News. He added that he would "reallocate, re-prioritize in our agency to do regulatory reform to get back within the bounds of Congress," though it remains unclear whether that includes existing climate change programs.

The budget proposal is not binding on Congress, which has the final say on appropriations. However, there is no guarantee that the cuts will be rejected. In the meantime, several states have taken steps to reduce their carbon footprints, signaling that some action on climate change may continue at the state level regardless of federal policy.